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

[Seawytch]

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

I did...you ignored it.

Need it again? Okay..

The SCOTUS ruled against the OVERWHELMING opinion of the American people in 1965...which allowed YOU to be married to your wife. You're okay with that "tyranny" though I'll bet...

So be it. If anyone wanted to fight it, they could.
First they have to prove the harm mixed couples caused........

If anyone wants to fight same-sex marriages they still can.

And they did. Clerks refused to issue licenses to couples like you.

Same bigots, different decade.

 

[mudwhistle]

The harm that this ruling has caused could be irreversible.....

I wanna marry my favorite barbeque

 

[Syriusly]

The harm that this ruling has caused could be irreversible.....

I wanna marry my favorite barbeque

Yeah- the harm Loving v. Virginia caused was irreversible too.

Whites are still marrying blacks and apparently now you wanna marry your favorite BBQ.

 

[bodecea]

Something for everyone to keep in mind is that Jesus had two Fathers!

Sure he did....*rolls eyes*

God is his only father. Joseph was basically his step-father.

You've been watching too much history channel.

Oh...I see so when Joseph is referred to as the earthly father of Jesus and God as His heavenly father, all those writings are false doctrine? Must be if you say so! Therefore you can't believe everything you read is the take away, right? Got it Mudwistful, and thanks!

He's a Birther...they have their own special kind of crazy.

I know! I just wanted to pull his string with a tongue-in-cheek post, and he reacted predictably. Not much below the skin on top!

I knew exactly what you were doing.

But since you're a newb I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

So what where you in the Navy, a pecker-checker?

Fascinating what a Birther will think is a Navy job.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

So Veterans and overweight people shouldn't be able to marry?

WTF are you babbling about!!!

You pointed out that homosexuals have a higher rate of suicides than normal- she was pointing out- accurately- that veterans have a higher rate of suicide also.

So- should we judge homosexuals and veterans the same based upon their shared higher incidences of suicide?

Aaaaannnnnddddd....

Crickets.

Guess you forgot that typing takes time......especially on a cell with a fucked up spellchecker.

Guess this is the 60s all over again...with respect to same-sex marriage.

So- should we judge homosexuals and veterans the same based upon their shared higher incidences of suicide?

 

[bodecea]

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

What's the point trying to convince YOU that you are a Birther. All you have to do is deny it, while in the same post spout Birther crap. Your brain is that deep into denial. And it shows.

Birther crap like I said has only to to with his bc.

As usual...you're a practiced liar who thinks she's being clever.

The funny thing is, I'm on your side on this issue.....but you're such a c**t we cannot agree on anything.

I find that insane Birthers such as yourself have pretty foul mouths too. Particularly when you get backed into your Birther corner.

 

[Syriusly]

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

I did...you ignored it.

Need it again? Okay..

The SCOTUS ruled against the OVERWHELMING opinion of the American people in 1965...which allowed YOU to be married to your wife. You're okay with that "tyranny" though I'll bet...

So be it. If anyone wanted to fight it, they could.
First they have to prove the harm mixed couples caused........

If anyone wants to fight same-sex marriages they still can.

LOL......the State of Virginia argued that mixed race marriages caused harm- just like the States argued that same gender marriages caused harm.

Both arguments fell flat on their face- because they were both stupid and based upon prejudice.

 

[Nosmo King]

Arraigned marriages, political marriages, marriages between cousins, marriages between minors have all been part of the marriage picture.

And always between a man and a woman. That's always been, and always will be, an essential, defining characteristic of marriage. The means of determining which man marries which woman, under what circumstances may change, but the pairing of male and female will not.

What is marriage? It is a contract issued by the state in which two consenting adults create first a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously existed. The contract also creates a new legal entity in which the two consenting adults meld their fortunes together.

There are special courts to dissolve that contract if the parties involved find their situation unworkable.

Now, why on earth would anyone object to those two consenting adults who want to enter into such a contract in order to show their commitment to one another? Your marriage, my marriage, the marriages of our neighbors and friends are not in jeopardy as a result of the SCOTUS ruling. No one's right to practice their faith is jeopardized. The objections to the ruling seem to me, at least, to be founded in hurtful stereotypes, fear, suspicion and hatred. Are those grounds upon which to run a nation, or found a church?

 

[bodecea]

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.......

Birther thinks we live in a Democracy.

 

[bendog]

The SC was wrong, but no law can be justified on religious grounds.

 

[bodecea]

Arraigned marriages, political marriages, marriages between cousins, marriages between minors have all been part of the marriage picture.

And always between a man and a woman. That's always been, and always will be, an essential, defining characteristic of marriage. The means of determining which man marries which woman, under what circumstances may change, but the pairing of male and female will not.

What is marriage? It is a contract issued by the state in which two consenting adults create first a next of kin relationship where no such relationship previously existed. The contract also creates a new legal entity in which the two consenting adults meld their fortunes together.

There are special courts to dissolve that contract if the parties involved find their situation unworkable.

Now, why on earth would anyone object to those two consenting adults who want to enter into such a contract in order to show their commitment to one another? Your marriage, my marriage, the marriages of our neighbors and friends are not in jeopardy as a result of the SCOTUS ruling. No one's right to practice their faith is jeopardized. The objections to the ruling seem to me, at least, to be founded in hurtful stereotypes, fear, suspicion and hatred. Are those grounds upon which to run a nation, or found a church?

Well, maybe some churches (or other houses of worship)

 

[bodecea]

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.

So, you want your small, non-intrusive government to prevent people from having children unless there is a father and a mother in the home....then force them to stay together til the children are grown.

Government cannot be the solution to every problem. I think our present state of moral decay is the result of looking to government to solve problems, where what we really needed to do was to man up, take responsibility for our own problems, and solve them ourselves.

In any event, government should certainly not be in the business of actively contributing to and promoting this moral decay.

So....while on the one hand you don't want government forcing your "optimum" way to raise children....you want government forcing people to raise children in your "optimum" way.

 

[bodecea]

Arraigned marriages, political marriages, marriages between cousins, marriages between minors have all been part of the marriage picture.

And always between a man and a woman. That's always been, and always will be, an essential, defining characteristic of marriage. The means of determining which man marries which woman, under what circumstances may change, but the pairing of male and female will not.

Marriage is an artificial construct....quite frequently it's between one man and many women. Or one man and one woman, and then another woman, and then another woman. It's often been, one man and one woman arranged by others over property.

 

[bodecea]

The harm that this ruling has caused could be irreversible.....

I wanna marry my favorite barbeque

Birther thinks marrying an inanimate object is the same as marrying two law-abiding tax-paying consenting adults.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Marriage is an artificial construct....quite frequently it's between one man and many women. Or one man and one woman, and then another woman, and then another woman. It's often been, one man and one woman arranged by others over property.

And always uniting man and woman.

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Kim Davis used her state authority to force people to obey her religion.

No, she refused to enforce a law that required her to violate her own religion.

Did the people who wrote and ratified the 14th, intend for it to force people to violate their own religion? If it could be couched in language claiming to provide "equal rights" to someone else?

 

[Seawytch]

The harm that this ruling has caused could be irreversible.....

I wanna marry my favorite barbeque

You can't actually describe that harm but you KNOW it will be irreversible.

Your BBQ can't consent.

 

[Seawytch]

Hey look...the slippery slope has been used before...when BLACKS could marry WHITES {gasp}

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.

How Arguments Against Gay Marriage Mirror Those Against Miscegenation

 

[mudwhistle]

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

I did...you ignored it.

Need it again? Okay..

The SCOTUS ruled against the OVERWHELMING opinion of the American people in 1965...which allowed YOU to be married to your wife. You're okay with that "tyranny" though I'll bet...

So be it. If anyone wanted to fight it, they could.
First they have to prove the harm mixed couples caused........

If anyone wants to fight same-sex marriages they still can.

And they did. Clerks refused to issue licenses to couples like you.

Same bigots, different decade.

For a totally different reason of course.

Show me where it says in the Bible that mixed marriages were not allowed. Abraham married an Egyptian. Show me where Christianity says that interracial marriages are a sin?

 

[Misty]

The Supreme Court is wrong...

... the Constitution says nothing about the status of marriage...

... therefore they have nothing within their jurisdiction to base their decision on...

... until legislation is passed - then and only then can they rule on the Constitutionality of the legislation one way or the other...

... it is not in their purview to legislate laws...

... especially since, at present, sexual orientation is not a protected class.

The very concept of a “protected class”, allegedly supported by the Fourteenth Amendment, is ironic. What the Fourteenth Amendment requires is “equal protection under the law”—a concept which is irreconcilable with the idea of “protected classes”, members of which are given greater protection under the law than those who are not members of such classes.

Even more, bizarre, of course, is the move to extend “protected class” status to various types of immoral sexual perverts, while denying denying not only equal protection, but even a lesser level for protection, to religious faith, even though religion is explicitly mentioned as protected under the First Amendment. The force of government is literally being used to favor evil over good, immorality over morality, madness over reason.

Abortion is legal. So let's think about our Supreme Court. They are fucked.