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

[mudwhistle]

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.

Birther means that you believe Obama isn't an American......and because his mother is an American...that makes Barry an American.

End of discussion.

 

[1stRambo]

Davis is wrong:

“The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P.358 U. S. 18.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 358 U. S. 18.”

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI, US Constitution

And the Supreme Court is correct:

“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Yo, you need to tell the rest of the story?
This means that overturning a Supreme Court decision is very difficult. There are two ways it can happen:

• States can amend the Constitution itself. This requires approval by three-quarters of the state legislatures -- no easy feat. However, it has happened several times.
• The Supreme Court can overrule itself. This happens when a different case involving the same constitutional issues as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, typically because of changing social and political situations. The longer the amount of time between the cases, the more likely this is to occur (partly due to stare decisis).

It isn't easy to do, but we've 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

"GTP"
*** City!

 

[bodecea]

Nope....by reinterpretation they rewrote the law. It's called ruling from the bench.....which is why selecting a president is so important.

If Obama had said he was going to legalize same-sex marriage he would never have been elected

They struck down bad law....and rewrote nothing. But you think the President is a secret muslim out to destroy our country so you're not playing with a full deck to begin with. Not as if the Truth and facts will put a dent in your self-delusion.

Bad law only in your opinion. But like I said before......what's next?

What right do you have to tell ANYONE they can't get married now?

You, in all of your stupidity, made it all possible.

Then there's the fact that this issue is really just a distraction......The transformation is under way. Muslims by the hundreds of thousands will be brought here at taxpayers expense, to shoot up recruiting stations and begin rioting whenever they feel that their dignity has been slighted. Bend down to Allah's will.

And you in the LGBT community are totally fucked when that eventually happens.

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....

 

[mudwhistle]

For the record, I support same-sex marriage, but I wanted them to get it in a more legit manner, not through lying and ignoring the eventual Pandora's Box this will eventually open.

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

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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!

 

[mudwhistle]

They struck down bad law....and rewrote nothing. But you think the President is a secret muslim out to destroy our country so you're not playing with a full deck to begin with. Not as if the Truth and facts will put a dent in your self-delusion.

Bad law only in your opinion. But like I said before......what's next?

What right do you have to tell ANYONE they can't get married now?

You, in all of your stupidity, made it all possible.

Then there's the fact that this issue is really just a distraction......The transformation is under way. Muslims by the hundreds of thousands will be brought here at taxpayers expense, to shoot up recruiting stations and begin rioting whenever they feel that their dignity has been slighted. Bend down to Allah's will.

And you in the LGBT community are totally fucked when that eventually happens.

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 know the definition of Birther then.

You're so full of shit.

Mean, irrational, dishonest to the core.

Perfect Democrat material.

 

[bodecea]

For the record, I support same-sex marriage, but I wanted them to get it in a more legit manner, not through lying and ignoring the eventual Pandora's Box this will eventually open.

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

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.

 

[bodecea]

Bad law only in your opinion. But like I said before......what's next?

What right do you have to tell ANYONE they can't get married now?

You, in all of your stupidity, made it all possible.

Then there's the fact that this issue is really just a distraction......The transformation is under way. Muslims by the hundreds of thousands will be brought here at taxpayers expense, to shoot up recruiting stations and begin rioting whenever they feel that their dignity has been slighted. Bend down to Allah's will.

And you in the LGBT community are totally fucked when that eventually happens.

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".

 

[Carla_Danger]

They struck down bad law....and rewrote nothing. But you think the President is a secret muslim out to destroy our country so you're not playing with a full deck to begin with. Not as if the Truth and facts will put a dent in your self-delusion.

Bad law only in your opinion. But like I said before......what's next?

What right do you have to tell ANYONE they can't get married now?

You, in all of your stupidity, made it all possible.

Then there's the fact that this issue is really just a distraction......The transformation is under way. Muslims by the hundreds of thousands will be brought here at taxpayers expense, to shoot up recruiting stations and begin rioting whenever they feel that their dignity has been slighted. Bend down to Allah's will.

And you in the LGBT community are totally fucked when that eventually happens.

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....

Yep, he's mental.

 

[Carla_Danger]

There is no shortage of "stupid" on this thread.

 

[mudwhistle]

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?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Davis is wrong:

“The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P.358 U. S. 18.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 358 U. S. 18.”

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI, US Constitution

And the Supreme Court is correct:

“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Yo, you need to tell the rest of the story?
This means that overturning a Supreme Court decision is very difficult. There are two ways it can happen:

• States can amend the Constitution itself. This requires approval by three-quarters of the state legislatures -- no easy feat. However, it has happened several times.
• The Supreme Court can overrule itself. This happens when a different case involving the same constitutional issues as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, typically because of changing social and political situations. The longer the amount of time between the cases, the more likely this is to occur (partly due to stare decisis).

It isn't easy to do, but we've 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

"GTP"
*** City!
View attachment 49738

So you think the country is going to move backwards on same sex marriage in a movement strong enough to overturn the SCOTUS?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

For the record, I support same-sex marriage, but I wanted them to get it in a more legit manner, not through lying and ignoring the eventual Pandora's Box this will eventually open.

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!

 

[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

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.

 

[Nosmo King]

I can't for the life of me understand Ms. Davis' 'religious' position. First, we are not governed by what any individual perceives as God's Law. So many interpretations of "God's Law" are out there, it's difficult to see just how righteous we must be in order to comply with them. Orthodox Jews see God's Law one way, the Amish see it another and self righteous folks like Ms. Davis and her supporters see it yet another way.

I am a Christian in in my 59 years I've never heard a minister admonish the congregation to shun homosexuals in commerce or state affairs. This is a new phenomena that seems to contradict the basic tenets of the faith; namely love thy neighbor and judge not lest ye be judged. Somehow so-called Christians have ferreted out some piece of scripture that allows them to ignore all the other teachings of Jesus Christ.

If this new teaching, a teaching that permits one to forget all the other basic tenets of the faith, holds, I still don't understand how issuing marriage licenses prevents her from freely practicing her faith. Unless that 'freedom' is the 'freedom' to openly flaunt the law of the land and discriminate against her fellow American citizens. Would that even be considered a 'freedom' at all? The bigoted class of so-called Christians claim this as a 'religious' right. Should there be a right ot ignore the law because you find someone else's lifestyle "icky"?

 

[1stRambo]

Davis is wrong:

“The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P.358 U. S. 18.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 358 U. S. 18.”

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI, US Constitution

And the Supreme Court is correct:

“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Yo, you need to tell the rest of the story?
This means that overturning a Supreme Court decision is very difficult. There are two ways it can happen:

• States can amend the Constitution itself. This requires approval by three-quarters of the state legislatures -- no easy feat. However, it has happened several times.
• The Supreme Court can overrule itself. This happens when a different case involving the same constitutional issues as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, typically because of changing social and political situations. The longer the amount of time between the cases, the more likely this is to occur (partly due to stare decisis).

It isn't easy to do, but we've 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

"GTP"
*** City!
View attachment 49738

So you think the country is going to move backwards on same sex marriage in a movement strong enough to overturn the SCOTUS?

Yo, I`ve been around awhile, and have seen many strange things happen in Politics!!!

"GTP"

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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 rulings of evil and corrupt judges notwithstanding—it will always be.

 

[paddymurphy]

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.

It says nothing about marriage, but it does say that any law must not deprive citizens of equal protection or due process and those laws banning gay marriage did both.

They have appellate jurisdiction over any case arising under the Constitution of the laws of the United States. The case before them arose under the 14th and 5th Amendment to the Constitution

Legislation was passed. In the two states whose laws were challenged, Michigan and Indiana. As well as in most states. Were you not aware that they passed laws banning gay marriage?

They did not legislate laws; they struck down unconstitutional provisions of laws.

At present, sexual orientation is a suspect class.

Gee , o for 5.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Apparently even my pants are smarter than you. No law was written by the Supreme Court. They struck down bad laws preventing gays from participating in legal marriage. Just like under Loving v. Virginia, no law was written by the Supreme Court....however bad laws preventing inter-racial marriage were struck down.

Nope....by reinterpretation they rewrote the law. It's called ruling from the bench.....which is why selecting a president is so important.

If Obama had said he was going to legalize same-sex marriage he would never have been elected

They struck down bad law....and rewrote nothing. But you think the President is a secret muslim out to destroy our country so you're not playing with a full deck to begin with. Not as if the Truth and facts will put a dent in your self-delusion.

Bad law only in your opinion. But like I said before......what's next?

What right do you have to tell ANYONE they can't get married now?

You, in all of your stupidity, made it all possible.

Then there's the fact that this issue is really just a distraction......The transformation is under way. Muslims by the hundreds of thousands will be brought here at taxpayers expense, to shoot up recruiting stations and begin rioting whenever they feel that their dignity has been slighted. Bend down to Allah's will.

And you in the LGBT community are totally fucked when that eventually happens.

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.

Davis is wrong:

“The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P.358 U. S. 18.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 358 U. S. 18.”

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI, US Constitution

And the Supreme Court is correct:

“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Yo, you need to tell the rest of the story?
This means that overturning a Supreme Court decision is very difficult. There are two ways it can happen:

• States can amend the Constitution itself. This requires approval by three-quarters of the state legislatures -- no easy feat. However, it has happened several times.
• The Supreme Court can overrule itself. This happens when a different case involving the same constitutional issues as an earlier case is reviewed by the court and seen in a new light, typically because of changing social and political situations. The longer the amount of time between the cases, the more likely this is to occur (partly due to stare decisis).

It isn't easy to do, but we've 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

"GTP"
*** City!
View attachment 49738

So you think the country is going to move backwards on same sex marriage in a movement strong enough to overturn the SCOTUS?

Yo, I`ve been around awhile, and have seen many strange things happen in Politics!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 49741

Your belief that gay marriage laws will be rolled back is a strange one indeed.