Kim Davis - The Christian Rosa Parks

[Rainman]

...and those state laws were ruled unconstitutional under the 14th. Hence, they were overturned.

Rulings are overturned everyday.

 

[Rainman]

The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the constitutionality of ANY STATE LAWS passed.

I am sure you would reverse your opinion if YOUR state outlawed GUNS.

You cant have it both ways, unless your not telling us something. *wink

TOS.

This is a states rights issue, not a gay rights issue. More exactly a will of the people issue. The courts should not be able to overturn an amendment to a constitution. Especially when the citizens overwhelmingly passed it. This was passed not with a simple majority, but overwhelmingly.

 

[soberups]

This is a states rights issue, not a gay rights issue. More exactly a will of the people issue. The courts should not be able to overturn an amendment to a constitution. Especially when the citizens overwhelmingly passed it. This was passed not with a simple majority, but overwhelmingly.

So if Kentuckians passed an amendment legalizing slavery again, would the "will of the people" mean that blacks in Kentucky would become slaves once again? Sorry, but "states rights" dont trump Constitutional rights.

 

[soberups]

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

This is a states rights issue, not a gay rights issue. More exactly a will of the people issue. The courts should not be able to overturn an amendment to a constitution. Especially when the citizens overwhelmingly passed it. This was passed not with a simple majority, but overwhelmingly.

State's rights issue you say? The great thing about the constitution is it prevents "the will of the people" from oppressing another group of people, especially through government means like the law you're talking about.

You might want to consider this other not so recent state's rights issue. Make the comparison and consider how history will inevitably view these types of zealots.

 

[The Other Side]

This is a states rights issue, not a gay rights issue. More exactly a will of the people issue. The courts should not be able to overturn an amendment to a constitution. Especially when the citizens overwhelmingly passed it. This was passed not with a simple majority, but overwhelmingly.

So, let me ask you this. YOU believe, just because a simple majority pass a "LAW" that it should stand and cant be overturned??

Ok, here in california, hispanics are now the majority. If the hispanics passed a "LAW" that said that WHITE people could not have a job in california, would you be ok with that "LAW" simply because they had the "majority????


TOS.

 

[Sportello]

This is a states rights issue, not a gay rights issue. More exactly a will of the people issue. The courts should not be able to overturn an amendment to a constitution. Especially when the citizens overwhelmingly passed it. This was passed not with a simple majority, but overwhelmingly.

Article Six, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, if the 14th Amendment doesn't float your boat.

 

[Sportello]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/639808494955315200

 

[MrFedEx]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/639808494955315200

But she is a martyr for the Religious Right, who, of course, mock the martyrs of religions other than Christianity.

 

[wkmac]

Then go move somewhere that has no constitutional protections.

We use to have that here and seems we were much freer from a central state as a result.

I'm just trying to be an originalist.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Cat lady, end of discussion lol:

 

[wkmac]

The great thing about the constitution is it prevents "the will of the people" from oppressing another group of people, especially through government means

Doesn't in reality always work that way but I appreciate in this situation the point you are driving at.

 

[wkmac]

The more I happen to think about this the more I'm thinking Ms. Davis is doing these gays a favor. Yeah, a favor.

Without the license, the State is not a 3rd party to their relationship and thus has no claim or position in how that relationship is carried out, modified or even dissolved. They are free to make or not make any contractual arrangement they want. Except for denial of certain state privileges, no real harm to person or property has actually occurred.

And it wasn't the end of the world as only the jurisdiction for which Ms. Davis controlled was not issuing the marriage license as all others were to my knowledge and you are free to go to any one of them in the State. Maybe the best response to Ms. Davis was a mass boycott and spend those license and fee dollars elsewhere. If the economic impact were enough, maybe better thinking heads might prevail.

 

[Catatonic]

The more I happen to think about this the more I'm thinking Ms. Davis is doing these gays a favor. Yeah, a favor.
If the economic impact were enough, maybe better thinking heads might prevail.

Jeez, how much is a marriage license?
I think I would just live in sin than pay the state for something that is none of their business.

 

[wkmac]

Jeez, how much is a marriage license?
I think I would just live in sin than pay the state for something that is none of their business.

When I say boycott, it ain't just the marriage license.

Where gays have a real beef is the distribution of property at death but one can use trust and other forms to work around those barriers. Sometimes even better than the means used by married couples. The marriage exemption in tax law should sun setted and just have higher individual deductions or great a household deduction that applies to a household situation regardless of marital status. As I understand there still are barriers regarding medical issues but seems to me some form of contract arrangement could be made there to circumvent that problem. My wife and I have been together 35 years and had we to do it over again, we'd for go the license and do so by contract and creating a trust which we are already considering doing anyway for our assets in retirement.

 

[I Am Jacks Damaged Box]

Just as Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white man in defiance of an unjust law Kim Davis is waging her own battle against an unjust ruling in support of the mentally troubled(read homosexual) to wed. It is against Davis's religious views to support or participate in a same sex wedding, and it should be her right to refuse to have her name attached to one. Just as Muhammad Ali refused to sign up for the selective service based on religious grounds and was later vindicated for doing so, Kim Davis should be allowed to refuse to issue same sex marriage licenses under the same logic. Unfortunately she is getting no backup from the same judicial system that came up with the convoluted logic which led to this problem in the first place. I cannot say Kim Davis will win her battle, but I do respect her for her willingness to stand up for what ...

 

[wayfair]

so if federal "law of the land" rule the world... how does the recreational pot use still happen within states where the federal says no?

 

[I Am Jacks Damaged Box]

 

[I Am Jacks Damaged Box]

 

[bbsam]

Rulings are overturned everyday.

Not Supreme Court rulings. Then tend to stick around for a good long time.