Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Ordered Released From Jail[W:228]

[Anthony60]

Show the law that they just made up... thanks.

Please, with the games. You know exactly what they did.

 

[winston53660]

Please, with the games. You know exactly what they did.

'Splain please.

 

[Anthony60]

Repeating the same inane drivel will not make it reality. SCOTUS did not make any laws nor have they attempted to do so. Perhaps a revisit to some basic civics lessons could, could I say, correct such elementary mistakes.

LOL! You people are something. Let's see, before the decision, SSM was not the law of the land. After the decision, SSM is the law of the land. Nope, they didn't do anything there, LOL. You people would argue that the sun doesn't rise in the East if it pushed some leftist, big government cause. Go away.

 

[winston53660]

LOL! You people are something. Let's see, before the decision, SSM was not the law of the land. After the decision, SSM is the law of the land. Nope, they didn't do anything there, LOL. You people would argue that the sun doesn't rise in the East if it pushed some leftist, big government cause. Go away.

And you are being forced to do what by the big bad guberment?

 

[Anthony60]

'Splain please.

Sorry.

 

[Anthony60]

And you are being forced to do what by the big bad guberment?

What am I supposed to do, teach a class? You people are in the wrong country. The old Soviet Union, East Germany, and the like, those are the places for you.

 

[prometeus]

LOL! You people are something. Let's see, before the decision, SSM was not the law of the land. After the decision, SSM is the law of the land. Nope, they didn't do anything there, LOL. You people would argue that the sun doesn't rise in the East if it pushed some leftist, big government cause. Go away.

And more clueless drivel. But here is a clue, "law of the land" in this case is a figure if speech. If there was an actual law legalizing same sex marriage, then you could cite it chapter and verse.
As I said earlier, you should revisit some basic civics lessons and learn what is a law and what is a SCOTUS decision and the difference between them.

 

[JasperL]

You missed the fact that there was a Supreme Court decision?
And let me state, for approximately the umpteenth time, the decision to let gays be married too is small potatoes compared to the SC violating and ignoring the Constitution.

We can all agree the Supreme Court sometimes gets decisions wrong, but I have a really hard time losing any sleep when the mistakes they make (and for the sake of argument, assume this is one) expand rights for historically oppressed minorities. So any error is "small potatoes" in my view.

As most of you obviously have no clue that (or choose to ignore) the fact that the Constitution protects us from government having too much power. It clearly states what the feds can do, and clearly limits the feds to those things. That is a fact, one that is often incompatible with today's democrats.

One BIG task for the Feds is protecting rights, especially of the minority. If they were overzealous with LGBT and SSM, I'm good with that. I'm much more concerned when they have appeared too willing through most of their history to, as they say, "comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted."

 

[Anthony60]

And more clueless drivel. But here is a clue, "law of the land" in this case is a figure if speech. If there was an actual law legalizing same sex marriage, then you could cite it chapter and verse.
As I said earlier, you should revisit some basic civics lessons and learn what is a law and what is a SCOTUS decision and the difference between them.

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. Just a figure of speech. Gotcha. OMG!

 

[winston53660]

What am I supposed to do, teach a class? You people are in the wrong country. The old Soviet Union, East Germany, and the like, those are the places for you.

Hmmm okay point taken what ever that point is

Now then here in the USofA what is the big bad guberment forcing you to do in regards to gay marriage?

 

[Anthony60]

That is exactly what happened in this case... SCOTUS protected the rights of the citizens from big government... can't be any more obvious than that.

Sure, obviously. Are you insane?

 

[Bodi]

'Splain please.

Sorry.

:lol: I understand...

 

[ttwtt78640]

Repeating the same inane drivel will not make it reality. SCOTUS did not make any laws nor have they attempted to do so. Perhaps a revisit to some basic civics lessons could, could I say, correct such elementary mistakes.

They did mandate change to current state laws not allowing SSM - by stating that they were unconstitutional based on a constitutional amendment passed in 1868. That is not making law but it is invalidating any such law based on a 5/4 split decision. If a legal challenge to state laws not defining marriage as including polyandry is made would the SCOTUS then be expected to declare that to be required (made into law) as well?

Many laws are not "fair" (deny equal protection) and apply to only specific subsets of the general population, e.g the selective service (miltary draft) system, affirmative action (racial/gender preferences) or minority owned business government contractual preference. Those laws clearly deny equal protection yet are allowed to stand. If the 14th amendment now requires all state (and local) laws to not exclude any subset of the general population then the SCOTUS has, in fact, made law.

 

[Bodi]

Sure, obviously. Are you insane?

IS that what you ask when you are out of your depth?

 

[Anthony60]

Hmmm okay point taken what ever that point is

Now then here in the USofA what is the big bad guberment forcing you to do in regards to gay marriage?

The federal government, by way of the Supreme Court, anointed it self with the power to decide what a marriage is. This is something that belongs to the States. There was a State by State, national conversation going on about SSM. The SC ended that, and decided that it was the sole arbiter of what a marriage is, with no Constitutional authority.

 

[Bodi]

LOL! You people are something. Let's see, before the decision, SSM was not the law of the land. After the decision, SSM is the law of the land. Nope, they didn't do anything there, LOL. You people would argue that the sun doesn't rise in the East if it pushed some leftist, big government cause. Go away.

SSM is not the law of the land, in fact it isn't a law at all :lol: What stupid thinking...

SSM is simply a right that homosexuals can engage in now.

 

[Anthony60]

IS that what you ask when you are out of your depth?

No, just checking your mental state to see why you would write that.

 

[winston53660]

The federal government, by way of the Supreme Court, anointed it self with the power to decide what a marriage is. This is something that belongs to the States. There was a State by State, national conversation going on about SSM. The SC ended that, and decided that it was the sole arbiter of what a marriage is, .

Hmm seems to me they left it up to individuals to decide what their marriage is gay, straight, interracial, etc. Would you really rather have The State Government dictate that to you?

with no Constitutional authority

:roll:

 

[Anthony60]

SSM is not the law of the land, in fact it isn't a law at all :lol: What stupid thinking...

SSM is simply a right that homosexuals can engage in now.

What does the term "Case Law" mean to you, if I may be so stupid?

 

[Bodi]

The federal government, by way of the Supreme Court, anointed it self with the power to decide what a marriage is. This is something that belongs to the States. There was a State by State, national conversation going on about SSM. The SC ended that, and decided that it was the sole arbiter of what a marriage is, with no Constitutional authority.

No, you have it 100% backwards... SCOTUS said that government couldn't define what marriage is...

 

[Bodi]

What does the term "Case Law" mean to you, if I may be so stupid?

I am fully aware of case law as I used it to defeat my ex in court twice... Case law is law in that it sets a legal precedent but it is not really a law, it simply shows that denying rights is illegal (in this case) so legally, others can point out the illegal law that might apply in their situation and gain the same rights or legal outcome from a court that the precedent did.

In my case I sued precedents from Judges denying relocation of children that had similar circumstances to us and she was denied relocation with the children even though in other instances the court allows relocation. The precedents that I used were not law even though it is often referred to as law, it is more common law but it really isn't that entirely either.

Case Law | Nolo.com

Case Law: Lawmakers Don't Make All the Laws - Lawyers.com

 

[Bodi]

No, just checking your mental state to see why you would write that.

I would ask you to point out any error of mine but I am afraid that you will just write: sorry.

 

[prometeus]

That is not making law but it is invalidating any such law

Exactly and there IS a difference.

If a legal challenge to state laws not defining marriage as including polyandry is made would the SCOTUS then be expected to declare that to be required (made into law) as well?

If you are asking for my opinion, then yes, I could care less who gets married to whom or how many at the same time. It simply does not affect me, my marriage or anyone else outside the consenting adults involved, so I can not see a single reason why government should be involved in it, or where or on what basis it should be restricted.

Many laws are not "fair" (deny equal protection) and apply to only specific subsets of the general population, e.g the selective service (miltary draft) system, affirmative action (racial/gender preferences) or minority owned business government contractual preference. Those laws clearly deny equal protection yet are allowed to stand. If the 14th amendment now requires all state (and local) laws to not exclude any subset of the general population then the SCOTUS has, in fact, made law.

I do not believe that the selective service was unfair. We did not need the level of numbers that a full draft would have produced but needed a way to ensure that we could get the needed number of soldiers.
As for the affirmative action, I am entirely opposed. Merit should be the only metric and that takes care of the preference for veterans since they HAVE earned consideration.
There is not prefect system and disagreement with specific laws does not invalidate the principles we all embrace and are at the foundation of our legal system and freedom.

 

[Removable Mind]

No, they are making up a new law where they don't have the power to do so. Certainly you must know that legislative power in the Constitution is given strictly to Congress? "Separation of powers", ring a bell at all?

The S.C. simply stopped denying the obvious. They've been color blind, gender blind, religion prejudice, etc, etc, etc, but it all coming home to roost. Equal protection under the law isn't something the court made up.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Exactly and there IS a difference.

If you are asking for my opinion, then yes, I could care less who gets married to whom or how many at the same time. It simply does not affect me, my marriage or anyone else outside the consenting adults involved, so I can not see a single reason why government should be involved in it, or where or on what basis it should be restricted.

I do not believe that the selective service was unfair. We did not need the level of numbers that a full draft would have produced but needed a way to ensure that we could get the needed number of solders.
As for the affirmative action, I am entirely opposed. Merit should be the only metric and that takes care of the preference for veterans since they HAVE earned consideration.
There is not prefect system and disagreement with specific laws does not invalidate the principles we all embrace and are at the foundation of our legal system and freedom.

Persons of either gender can (and do) serve in the miltary yet only males may be legally forced to do so - that seems fair (and meets the defintion of equal protection) to you?