Rulings are overturned everyday....and those state laws were ruled unconstitutional under the 14th. Hence, they were overturned.
Rulings are overturned everyday....and those state laws were ruled unconstitutional under the 14th. Hence, they were overturned.
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.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.
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.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.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.
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.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.
Then go move somewhere that has no constitutional protections.
The great thing about the constitution is it prevents "the will of the people" from oppressing another group of people, especially through government means
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.
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 ...
Not Supreme Court rulings. Then tend to stick around for a good long time.Rulings are overturned everyday.