Is Kim Davis wrong? Or is the Supreme Ct wrong about requiring acceptance of same-sex "marriage"?

[paddymurphy]

Daddy didn't have contact and she blames her mother. She's a product of divorce before she's the child of gay parents. That's what she's bitter about.

Both of these are bad situations.

Long before I was born,society recognized the tragic impact that it had on a child, to “come from a broken home”. But now, we've gone beyond the obvious folly of devaluing marriage, and making divorce easier and more socially acceptable. That was bad enough.

We've divorced the sanctity of sexual intimacy from marriage. We've removed the stigma from illegitimacy, but we have not and cannot remove the consequences, which children end up bearing as a result of their parents' folly. Instead of coming from a broken home, nearly half of all children now are born into no home at all.

And now, we're taking it another step; willfully creating distorted “homes”, inherently more “broken” than the traditional “broken home”, and putting children into them.

Ms. Barwick got a double-dose of broken. First, she came from a conventionally-broken home. And if that wasn't already bad enough, she then grew up in the new kind of even-more-broken-home. I think she knows what she's writing about, better than most of us possibly can.

And your explanation, then, for why we have less crime today?

 

[mudwhistle]

What is the "more legit manner" you have in mind? Using the court system set up by the U.S. Constitution isn't legit?

The exact same system that "forced" his interracial marriage on a very unwilling (80%) populace.

Link

Interracial marriage was popular to a majority. Southern Democrats (your party BTW) were pretty much last to sign on to it in the 60s

Nobody could prove any harm, so it became legal.

The rationale by Justice Kennedy for same-sex marriage was tha marriage makes children safe.

Okay. Lol

What a huge lie that is.

Prove it

That easy, Studley! SCOTUS - Loving v. Virginia (1967). 16 States had anti-miscegenation statutes on the books and when the Loving's contested the Virginia statute, it was found violative of Amendment XIV's due process clause, and thereby allowing persons of different races to marry without obstruction and closing the books on all the other anti-miscegenation statutes in other States!

So....what's your point?

16 states out of 50 sounds like a minority. I'd be willing to bet my left nut most of those 16 states were controlled by......wait for it.........Democrats.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Court told the states you cannot define marriage under your laws as only one man one woman. The Court has every right to do that.

No state defined marriage. It was states recognizing marriage, for what it is, what it has always been, and what—the ruling of evil and corrupt judges notwithstanding—it will always be.

English please.

 

[Nosmo King]

The Court told the states you cannot define marriage under your laws as only one man one woman. The Court has every right to do that.

No state defined marriage. It was states recognizing marriage, for what it is, what it has always been, and what—the ruling of evil and corrupt judges notwithstanding—it will always be.

Were marriages always as you think they were? Really?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You can't jail Supreme Court justices for making a decision- perhaps you should read the Constitution?

And that is a problem.

Like all other public servants they swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. They agreed to this as a condition of their jobs. And yet they have usurped the power to distort, and corrupt, and mock the Constitution, and no means is in place to hold them accountable for their malfeasance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The exact same system that "forced" his interracial marriage on a very unwilling (80%) populace.

Link

Interracial marriage was popular to a majority. Southern Democrats (your party BTW) were pretty much last to sign on to it in the 60s

Nobody could prove any harm, so it became legal.

The rationale by Justice Kennedy for same-sex marriage was tha marriage makes children safe.

Okay. Lol

What a huge lie that is.

Prove it

That easy, Studley! SCOTUS - Loving v. Virginia (1967). 16 States had anti-miscegenation statutes on the books and when the Loving's contested the Virginia statute, it was found violative of Amendment XIV's due process clause, and thereby allowing persons of different races to marry without obstruction and closing the books on all the other anti-miscegenation statutes in other States!

So....what's your point?

16 states out of 50 sounds like a minority. I'd be willing to bet my left nut most of those 16 states were controlled by......wait for it.........Democrats.

You don't seem to understand how our country's legal system works. Maybe you should read a book or something.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Court told the states you cannot define marriage under your laws as only one man one woman. The Court has every right to do that.

No state defined marriage. It was states recognizing marriage, for what it is, what it has always been, and what—the ruling of evil and corrupt judges notwithstanding—it will always be.

Were marriages always as you think they were? Really?

Same sex marriage has always been around. The actual relationship itself, regardless of the laws or lack thereof,

has been a part of societies throughout history.

 

[mudwhistle]

So...someone tell me if it's even worth it to argue what is obvious law with a Birther who has already demonstrated he isn't sane?

I'm not a birther, *****!!!


And one has to question the sanity of a class of people that commit suicide in higher than normal numbers. It's a terrible truth of the gay lifestyle.

Liar, you damn sure are an idiot birther.

He has a valid bc, which is more than Obama can say.

He's a Birther who goes on and on about Birther stuff then expects people to not notice. There's no having a sane conversation with him....

Obviously you don't the definition of Birther then.

You're so full of shit.

Mean, irrational, dishonest to the core.

Perfect Democrat material.

Keep going on, Birther.....tell us more about "Barry" and him being a "secret Muslim".

​

The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to the public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy.

Charles de Montesquieu

Now you understand why so many hate your asses.......

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can't jail Supreme Court justices for making a decision- perhaps you should read the Constitution?

And that is a problem.

Like all other public servants they swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. They agreed to this as a condition of their jobs. And yet they have usurped the power to distort, and corrupt, and mock the Constitution, and no means is in place to hold them accountable for their malfeasance.

If such an authority five of them would have been ousted for Bush v Gore.

 

[Seawytch]

Interracial marriage was popular to a majority. Southern Democrats (your party BTW) were pretty much last to sign on to it in the 60s

Not even close. 80% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage when the SCOTUS "forced" it upon a populace that was vehemently opposed.

Nobody could prove any harm, so it became legal.

The rationale by Justice Kennedy for same-sex marriage was tha marriage makes children safe.

Okay. Lol

Where in his majority decision was that wording?

 

[mudwhistle]

You can't jail Supreme Court justices for making a decision- perhaps you should read the Constitution?

And that is a problem.

Like all other public servants they swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. They agreed to this as a condition of their jobs. And yet they have usurped the power to distort, and corrupt, and mock the Constitution, and no means is in place to hold them accountable for their malfeasance.

Yet there is strong belief that the decision was arrived improperly if not illegally.

If this was done properly we wouldn't have so many against the decision......but this is what happens in oppressive regimes. It causes an adverse reaction.

 

[Nosmo King]

The Court told the states you cannot define marriage under your laws as only one man one woman. The Court has every right to do that.

No state defined marriage. It was states recognizing marriage, for what it is, what it has always been, and what—the ruling of evil and corrupt judges notwithstanding—it will always be.

Were marriages always as you think they were? Really?

Same sex marriage has always been around. The actual relationship itself, regardless of the laws or lack thereof,

has been a part of societies throughout history.

Arraigned marriages, political marriages, marriages between cousins, marriages between minors have all been part of the marriage picture. Some folks without a firm grip on history seem to think that the "Ozzie and Harriet" model has been around for centuries, and it hasn't.

 

[Seawytch]

The Constitution (Amendment 1) says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

And the 14th amendment said that what applied to the Fed govt, now applies to state and local govts too. Meaning, no govt can make a law as described by the 1st amendment.

A basic tenet of many religions in this country is that homosexuality is a sin, and is forbidden. That was true in George Washington's time, and is just as true now.

If Congress makes a law saying that people (such as county clerks) must accept a homosexual same-sex "marriage", hasn't Congress (and/or the county govt of Rowan County, Kentucky) violated the 1st amendment?

Why did they jail Kim Davis? Sounds like they should have jailed the Congressmen (or county govt officials) who voted for the law instead, and possibly the affirming justices of the Supreme Court too.

The 1st Amendment only prevents the federal government from making laws for or against religious freedom. The decision to use the 14th Amendment to allow same-sex marriage was unconstitutional because it didn't allow complete freedom for everyone, the freedom for anyone to marry anyone or anything. This decision is a complete sham.

Throwing somebody in jail for not accepting this unconstitutional decision should be prohibited as well. But our court system has been taken over by the gay agenda.

My civil marriage license doesn't infringe on your religion in any way shape or form. Kim Davis was actually trying to impose her religious views on her secular office...you're down with that kind of Sharia law shit?

As long as any person is unable to marry whomever they wish....this is basically a law that was written by the Supreme Court, which is unconstitutional.

The only reason it made it this far is because the Gay Agenda had to lie and claim that they weren't being discriminatory. Discriminatory against marrying inside your own family or marrying regardless of the age or species of the parties.

So Loving was also unconstitutional. Have you told all the interracial couples?

Look, if you think there is no demonstrable harm in marrying your sibling, your dog (can't consent), a child (can't consent), a dead person (can't consent) or more than one person, you are free to do just as gay and interracial couples did and petition the courts. Somehow I don't think you'll fare as well with many of your hyperbolic nonsense...but have fun storming the castle.

If we were to use Rosie O'Donnell as an example of the harm that same-sex marriages can cause....then it would never have made it to the Supreme Court.

Her adopted child is living with her biological mother....because Rosie is a lousy mother apparently.

That's pathetic even for you. Still can't come up with that demonstrable harm can you?

 

[mudwhistle]

Interracial marriage was popular to a majority. Southern Democrats (your party BTW) were pretty much last to sign on to it in the 60s

Not even close. 80% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage when the SCOTUS "forced" it upon a populace that was vehemently opposed.

Nobody could prove any harm, so it became legal.

The rationale by Justice Kennedy for same-sex marriage was tha marriage makes children safe.

Okay. Lol

Where in his majority decision was that wording?

Look it up. It's in there.

Doing your homework for you isn't in my job description.

 

[WorldWatcher]

e compiled a list of 10 Supreme Court cases that were later overturned. Many of them left a permanent mark on American history.

10 Overturned Supreme Court Cases

Your list forgot one...


................................ Baker v. Nelson.



>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

We had children before we could marry. Why don't you want our children to have married parents?

I want all children to have a proper married set of parents. That means a father and a mother. By wise, divine design, it takes a father and a mother to create a child, and it also takes a father and a mother to properly raise that child.

Study: Children fare better in traditional mom-dad families

Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting

You cited a study that was literally laughed out of a court of law.

 

[Seawytch]

Interracial marriage was popular to a majority. Southern Democrats (your party BTW) were pretty much last to sign on to it in the 60s

Not even close. 80% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage when the SCOTUS "forced" it upon a populace that was vehemently opposed.

Nobody could prove any harm, so it became legal.

The rationale by Justice Kennedy for same-sex marriage was tha marriage makes children safe.

Okay. Lol

Where in his majority decision was that wording?

Look it up. It's in there.

Doing your homework for you isn't in my job description.

Ah, so you made a claim you can't support...got it.

 

[Syriusly]

You can't jail Supreme Court justices for making a decision- perhaps you should read the Constitution?

And that is a problem.

Like all other public servants they swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. They agreed to this as a condition of their jobs. And yet they have usurped the power to distort, and corrupt, and mock the Constitution, and no means is in place to hold them accountable for their malfeasance.

Yet there is strong belief that the decision was arrived improperly if not illegally.

If this was done properly we wouldn't have so many against the decision......but this is what happens in oppressive regimes. It causes an adverse reaction.

A strong belief by you.

Not the first time that people don't agree with a Supreme Court decision- personally I disagree with Citizen's United- but the decision is as legitimate as any other.

Why specifically are you against individuals having the right to seek redress against unconstitutional laws through the courts?

 

[mudwhistle]

The 1st Amendment only prevents the federal government from making laws for or against religious freedom. The decision to use the 14th Amendment to allow same-sex marriage was unconstitutional because it didn't allow complete freedom for everyone, the freedom for anyone to marry anyone or anything. This decision is a complete sham.

Throwing somebody in jail for not accepting this unconstitutional decision should be prohibited as well. But our court system has been taken over by the gay agenda.

My civil marriage license doesn't infringe on your religion in any way shape or form. Kim Davis was actually trying to impose her religious views on her secular office...you're down with that kind of Sharia law shit?

As long as any person is unable to marry whomever they wish....this is basically a law that was written by the Supreme Court, which is unconstitutional.

The only reason it made it this far is because the Gay Agenda had to lie and claim that they weren't being discriminatory. Discriminatory against marrying inside your own family or marrying regardless of the age or species of the parties.

So Loving was also unconstitutional. Have you told all the interracial couples?

Look, if you think there is no demonstrable harm in marrying your sibling, your dog (can't consent), a child (can't consent), a dead person (can't consent) or more than one person, you are free to do just as gay and interracial couples did and petition the courts. Somehow I don't think you'll fare as well with many of your hyperbolic nonsense...but have fun storming the castle.

If we were to use Rosie O'Donnell as an example of the harm that same-sex marriages can cause....then it would never have made it to the Supreme Court.

Her adopted child is living with her biological mother....because Rosie is a lousy mother apparently.

That's pathetic even for you. Still can't come up with that demonstrable harm can you?

P
Statistics show higher than normal suicides, higher than normal adverse sexual lifestyles.....and eventually it will show higher than normal divorce.

Btw, you guys justified your arguments by painting all straight couples with the same broad brush. Truth is, you need a license to drive, to own a pet, even to vote, but they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father.

Some of them don't deserve the privilege.


Just like every liberal living in their fantasy......thinking just being Gay means you're perfect parents.

 

[Seawytch]

And one has to question the sanity of a class of people that commit suicide in higher than normal numbers.

Veterans?

Detailed study confirms high suicide rate among recent veterans