Kim Davis Is Rosa Parks

[Cecilie1200]

...

Yes.

We've seen this faux equivalency and moral relativism before, in attempting (and failing) to compare resistance to integration, versus resistance to the legitimizing and mainstreaming of sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).

Just want to remind you once more that you lost on this one. However you choose to call it, it's legal and accepted by the majority of the population.

IOW, this toothpaste is not going back in the tube.

Like I said, "we got what we wanted, and you have to take it!"

That's really how you want to go about it, you can at least stop pissing and whining about the pushback, wimp.

 

[David_42]

But it is the very legality of such marriages that Davis disputes.

Wrong she recommended they just go to the next county over to get a marriage license. She recognizes the legality of same-sex Civil Marriage, she just didn't want to do her job to issue them a license.

The going to another county to get a marriage license was something she raised at trial -->> http://www.aclu-ky.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Bunning-Rowan-Ruling-81215.pdf


>>>>

I don't see that as her recognizing the legality of homosexual "marriage" at all. I see it as her recognizing that the next county over will comply with the illegal court ruling. She, however, does NOT wish to comply with it. Which I can understand, since it is illegal.

Unfortunately the court order NOT being illegal is what throws a monkey wrench into your argument.

Don't try to bring facts into this, I was having so much fun with the bigoted idiots.

You and your girlfriend here need to review the definition of "facts". It doesn't mean what you clearly think it does.

It's a fact that love knows no labels. Tired of dealing with you ******* morons.
Get salty, watch my signature.

 

[Cecilie1200]

...Kim Davis was trying to introduce christian sharia law to her county...

There is no such thing as Christian Sharia Law.

It's a metaphor, stupid. And it is very appropriate, if you can 'get' the metaphor. Which, limited as you are, seems unlikely.

Metaphor isn't defined as "made-up piece of shit". Just FYI.

Obviously you don't like the comparison, but it is a metaphor whether you agree with the comparison or not. LOL All you showed by your post is your ignorance of rhetorical techniques. Pathetic.

Yeah, I'm funny about wanting English to be used properly, and things people say making sense. It's a quirk.

Just for future reference, you should never assume people are telling you you're a dumbass because they're angry at how right you are. In your case, it's far more likely that you're just a dumbass.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But it is the very legality of such marriages that Davis disputes.

Wrong she recommended they just go to the next county over to get a marriage license. She recognizes the legality of same-sex Civil Marriage, she just didn't want to do her job to issue them a license.

The going to another county to get a marriage license was something she raised at trial -->> http://www.aclu-ky.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Bunning-Rowan-Ruling-81215.pdf


>>>>

I don't see that as her recognizing the legality of homosexual "marriage" at all. I see it as her recognizing that the next county over will comply with the illegal court ruling. She, however, does NOT wish to comply with it. Which I can understand, since it is illegal.

Unfortunately the court order NOT being illegal is what throws a monkey wrench into your argument.

Really? Perhaps you could show me the place in the law that gives legislative power to the courts. Or maybe you could show me the spot where marriage has EVER been federal jurisdiction, or mentioned in the Constitution, or in any way treated as anything but subject to STATE law and administered by local governments.

You leftists have been insisting that judicial fiat is legal and acceptable for decades, and none of you has ever offered anything but "Because we WANT it to be, and you can't stop us!" as a justification.

Bottom line is, you couldn't get this "legal" through the correct channels, despite trying for years. Every single time you asked the voters to give you what you wanted, they told you to go **** off. So you just decided those poor stupid bastards weren't as smart as you, and needed to have control taken away from them and their lives ordered according to your "superior" worldview for their own good.

And now your frillies are all rumpled because the people aren't grateful and rolling over to cooperate with you. Boo ******* hoo.

Judicial Review of laws is an established principle of constitutional law. The SCOTUS may invalidate laws that it deems unconstitutional. In other case it may interpret the law in terms of legislative intent. Some call it legislating from the bench or judicial activism. I call it doing what they are supposed to do.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmarkUnited States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.


A number of legal scholars argue that the power of judicial review in the United States predated Marbury, and that Marbury was merely the first Supreme Court case to exercise a power that already existed and was acknowledged. These scholars point to statements about judicial review made in the Constitutional Convention and the state ratifying conventions, statements about judicial review in publications debating ratification, and court cases before Marbury that involved judicial review.[13]

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, there were a number of references to judicial review. Fifteen delegates made statements about the power of the federal courts to review the constitutionality of laws, with all but two of them supporting the idea.[14]


http://www.ask.com/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison?qsrc=3044

And you are going to try to tell us that marriage has never been federal question? Seriously?

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights

'
\\

Make that 15 times now with Obergefell. You did read it didn't you? Notice that one of those prior rulings on marriage was Loving v. Virginia. By your logic, if the gay marriage ruling was illegal, so was the ruling that outlawed interracial marriage. Are you willing to go there?

Now try and tell us that there is no such thing as Federal supremacy:

Faulty Federalism: The Gaping Hole in the Newly Emerging Arguments Against Marriage Equality

David H. Gans

October 1, 2014

In the wake of a remarkable string of lower court decisions holding that the Constitution requires marriage equality, states still defending discriminatory marriage laws, and their allies, have radically changed their strategy, de-emphasizing the “responsible procreation” arguments that have fallen flat. In the cases now awaiting Supreme Court review, the leading argument being pressed by opponents of marriage equality is that the people of the states – either through an act of the voters or the state legislature – must be free to choose to define marriage how they see fit, free from constitutional constraints.


However, as we explain in this issue brief, these arguments not only misread the substance of the Fourteenth Amendment, which establishes universal guarantees of liberty and equality that protect all persons, but also contravene first principles of constitutional supremacy, federalism, and the role of the courts in our constitutional system going all the way back to the Constitution’s Founding.

Faulty Federalism: The Gaping Hole in the Newly Emerging Arguments Against Marriage Equality | Constitutional Accountability Center

 

[Contumacious]

Kim Davis Is Rosa Parks

Weird thing is today's democrats hate this woman for standing for religious freedom,1950-1960's democrats were the members of the klan and the ones that wanted blacks at back of the bus! I see not much has changed.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the Davis Affair has nothing to do with religious freedom.

The SCOTUS has ruled that the 14A protects homosexuals right to get married. So does the 9A. While I consider male homosexualism to be an aberration , as a Libertarian I live and let live.

The complainants believe that getting butt-fucked is right , well more power to them. It is irrelevant that Ms Davis and I are of a different opinion. Ms Davis , a state bureaucrat , must recognize and honor their right to pursue happiness.It is her ministerial duty.

.

.

 

[Kondor3]

,,,I coined the term Christaria. I originated it...

Ah here you are inflicting yourself on another Kim Davis thread instead of doing your homework assignment that I gave you. (#11300 ) Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court | Page 113 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum What's the matter, is this all that you can manage with the brain cells that you have you have ?

Calm yourself, Princess...

 

[Preacher]

Yes it does.

Kim Davis Is Rosa Parks

Weird thing is today's democrats hate this woman for standing for religious freedom,1950-1960's democrats were the members of the klan and the ones that wanted blacks at back of the bus! I see not much has changed.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the Davis Affair has nothing to do with religious freedom.

The SCOTUS has ruled that the 14A protects homosexuals right to get married. So does the 9A. While I consider male homosexualism to be an aberration , as a Libertarian I live and let live.

The complainants believe that getting butt-fucked is right , well more power to them. It is irrelevant that Ms Davis and I are of a different opinion. Ms Davis , a state bureaucrat , must recognize and honor their right to pursue happiness.It is her ministerial duty.

.

.

Yes it does.

 

[EriktheRed]

...

Yes.

We've seen this faux equivalency and moral relativism before, in attempting (and failing) to compare resistance to integration, versus resistance to the legitimizing and mainstreaming of sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).

Just want to remind you once more that you lost on this one. However you choose to call it, it's legal and accepted by the majority of the population.

IOW, this toothpaste is not going back in the tube.

Like I said, "we got what we wanted, and you have to take it!"

That's really how you want to go about it, you can at least stop pissing and whining about the pushback, wimp.

Then how 'bout we just laugh at your futile efforts to effectively push back.

 

[Dragonlady]

As a Christian, I deeply resent those here who talk like they are speaking for all Christians when they side with this Christian extremist.

Many mainstream Christian Churches are very accepting of gays and do not practice discrimination against gays. My Church is one of them.

These are large mainstream churches, not fringe congregations. To suggest that all Christians actively oppose gay rights is patently false.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

,,,I coined the term Christaria. I originated it...

Ah here you are inflicting yourself on another Kim Davis thread instead of doing your homework assignment that I gave you. (#11300 ) Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court | Page 113 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum What's the matter, is this all that you can manage with the brain cells that you have you have ?

Calm yourself, Princess...

I'm quite calm bubba. I take that response as your acceptance of a failing grade for your assignment. It's apparent to all who are paying attention that you are an intellectual lightweight who can do nothing more than make idiotic assertions that you can't back up. Do you even have the slightest idea of how foolish you appear?

 

[Arizona Willie]

The " church " of Ms. Davis is a splinter church I'd bet.
Probably one of those store front churches you see with a congregation of 25 snake handlers. Oops 24.

 

[playtime]

As a Christian, I deeply resent those here who talk like they are speaking for all Christians when they side with this Christian extremist.

Many mainstream Christian Churches are very accepting of gays and do not practice discrimination against gays. My Church is one of them.

These are large mainstream churches, not fringe congregations. To suggest that all Christians actively oppose gay rights is patently false.

Bingo. I am a Christian as well & another poster tried saying that 'Christian Americans are against this ruling'. I had to shut that one opinion down.

 

[playtime]

,,,I coined the term Christaria. I originated it...

Ah here you are inflicting yourself on another Kim Davis thread instead of doing your homework assignment that I gave you. (#11300 ) Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court | Page 113 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum What's the matter, is this all that you can manage with the brain cells that you have you have ?

Calm yourself, Princess...

I'm quite calm bubba. I take that response as your acceptance of a failing grade for your assignment. It's apparent to all who are paying attention that you are an intellectual lightweight who can do nothing more than make idiotic assertions that you can't back up. Do you even have the slightest idea of how foolish you appear?

He had clue none what denomination fundie type Christian she even was, but challenged me anyway when I was calling her out as a hypocrite when it came to signing off on both divorce decrees & then marriage licenses... since according to her religion, that equates to adultery. So I showed & linked how that was a big mistake on bubba's part. I haven't heard any retort about it since. Gee, I wonder why.

 

[bravoactual]

Kim Davis Is Rosa Parks

Weird thing is today's democrats hate this woman for standing for religious freedom,1950-1960's democrats were the members of the klan and the ones that wanted blacks at back of the bus! I see not much has changed.

Davis is NOT Black.

Davis was riding on a bus.

She created her own problem.

Davis for like a female Alfred E. Newman.

 

[Kondor3]

,,,I coined the term Christaria. I originated it...

Ah here you are inflicting yourself on another Kim Davis thread instead of doing your homework assignment that I gave you. (#11300 ) Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court | Page 113 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum What's the matter, is this all that you can manage with the brain cells that you have you have ?

Calm yourself, Princess...

I'm quite calm bubba. I take that response as your acceptance of a failing grade for your assignment. It's apparent to all who are paying attention that you are an intellectual lightweight who can do nothing more than make idiotic assertions that you can't back up. Do you even have the slightest idea of how foolish you appear?

Oh, dear-me, are you operating under the delusion that you are in someway my schoolmaster, or my superior, intellectually or otherwise?

Yer a funny wee little boggit, aren't you?

 

[Asclepias]

Kim Davis is Rosa Parks only on Opposite day.

 

[Kondor3]

...He had clue none what denomination fundie type Christian she even was...

That is correct.

So I asked an honest question; reserving judgment on her so-called 'hypocrisy' until someone had weighed-in with that answer, and some feedback on how that particular denomination stereotypically views divorce, and, finally, whether her divorce and/or other so-called un-Christian acts were committed prior-to or after her conversion.

All part-and-parcel of the Discovery Process.

It's called gathering-in as much fact and truth as is practicable before making any judgment(s).

You're so all a-quiver over the possibility of 'making your bones' around here and baiting people, that you failed to recognize an honest question by a contributor.

Now, go dry-hump somebody else's pants-cuff.

Out the door you go, Queenie... no soup for you tonight.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Figuratively speaking, Kim Davis is definitely Rosa Parks.

Rosa Parks is dead.

 

[Esmeralda]

...Kim Davis was trying to introduce christian sharia law to her county...

There is no such thing as Christian Sharia Law.

It's a metaphor, stupid. And it is very appropriate, if you can 'get' the metaphor. Which, limited as you are, seems unlikely.

Metaphor isn't defined as "made-up piece of shit". Just FYI.

Obviously you don't like the comparison, but it is a metaphor whether you agree with the comparison or not. LOL All you showed by your post is your ignorance of rhetorical techniques. Pathetic.

Yeah, I'm funny about wanting English to be used properly, and things people say making sense. It's a quirk.

Just for future reference, you should never assume people are telling you you're a dumbass because they're angry at how right you are. In your case, it's far more likely that you're just a dumbass.

Using metaphorical languague and rhetorical techniques IS using English properly. That you don't understand figurative languge and rhetoric seems to be the problem. As far as who is the "dumbass," your assertion is quintessentially ironic. LOL

 

[ElmerMudd]

Kim Davis Is Rosa Parks

Weird thing is today's democrats hate this woman for standing for religious freedom,1950-1960's democrats were the members of the klan and the ones that wanted blacks at back of the bus! I see not much has changed.

If you cannot tell the difference between Rosa Parks and Kim Davis you are an idiot.
If you are saying they are the same because of the way Democrats (some Democrats) react to them you are a bigger idiot. There are democrats on the wrong and right side of bot issues.
Rosa stood up on a simple issue, does the color of your skin mean you should have different rights in the US. She wins people can sit where ever they want on a bus no matter the color of their skin.
Kim Davis took a job where she took an oath to uphold the laws of the USA. She decided that one of the laws was counter to her religious beliefs. She wins then every government worker can refuse to do their job if it requires a duty contrary to their religious beliefs. Think of the number of religions and the many different beliefs. Think of the implications.
Kim Davis is standing up to have the US government changed to a Christian Caliphate.
Rosa Parks stood up for equal rights for all regardless the color of their skin.