Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Sep 7, 2015.
Read more at http://barbwire.com/2015/09/06/kim-davis-supreme-court-lawlessness/
The article is wrong.
Didn't Roe v. Wade make abortion the law of the land as well?
Love it or hate it the answer is yes it did make abortion the law of the land.
Also, love it or hate it their Citizens United making corporations individuals under the law as the law of the land also.
One flaw in the logic of the OP is that if one ruling is not the law of the and then none of their rulings are the law of the land. This would mean that the SC has no power and no authority to rule. Also it would mean that any state could destroy any federal law. There would be chaos.
Wasn't Dred Scott the law of the land also?
One flaw in the logic of the Leftist supporting s0d0mite marriage is that if one ruling is not the law of the land if the Court acted without authority from the Constitution. Where did Thomas Jefferson or James Madison say that s0d0mites should marry?
Kim Davis is one brave Democrat to stand up against Obama, Ruth Ginsburg, and all of those other Lefties.
Both Scalia and Roberts said this decision was not based on law or the constitution.
And neither was Dred Scott, another Democrat decision.
The Democrats are now saying that race is a choice (you can chose to be black or to be Cherokee Indian, for example) but that sexual orientation is something that you are born with.
Now 100 years ago, it was just the opposite: race was an accident of birth and sexual orientation was a choice.
This is true--it's based on a culturally Marxist revisionism and '1984' Newspeak. It's certainly not based on a plain reading of the Constitution interpreted in the framework of the "Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God", to whom the founding fathers appealed in the Declaration of Independence, and from Whom our rights come. Our federal goverment is lawless in every way--inventing rights that aren't real and forcing them on the people, passing laws without reading the bills, making laws through executive fiat, and refusing to enforce other laws. Our founding fathers must be spinning around in their graves.
Why is it that Democrats when they really want to insult someone call them 'homosexuals' as we saw recently here on the Baptist Board?
While I personally admire Mrs. Davis's position that gay marriage is wrong, I'm not really sure that her getting herself jailed is really going to change many gay persons' minds with regard to them wanting to be married.
If a gay couple is bound and determined to be married to each other, they'll most likely just go to some place that'll perform a gay marriage for them.
There are even some churches who have a gay woman as their pastor, so even if a gay person desires to be wed in a church setting, that's quite possible nowadays.
Mrs. Davis has made her choice to abide by her state's Marriage Covenant legislation, and she is to be applauded for that.
OTOH, I've seen state judges rule that, even if a majority of that state's voting population voted in favor of traditional marriage [one man & one woman], a single judge can rule against this kind of "voice of the people" and thus declare that this referendum is null and void, with little or no recourse given to the people of that state.
In recent years, this is exactly what has happened, leaving the people with hardly no say-so at all when it comes to their having a voice in what they want in their state's constitution.
How would you feel about a Quaker refusing a to issue a gun permit because he was a pacifist?
How about a Muslim refusing to issue a driver's license to a woman?
How about a Christian refusing to issue a divorce decree?
In each of these cases, did the job originally NOT include these tasks? Would the Quaker have a job where suddenly he is responsible for gun permits? In each of these cases, the person would know exactly what the job entails from the start. It's not like I'd go try to get a job at an abortion clinic and then suddenly decide I'm not going to do any work regarding abortions.
However, this woman has had this job for many years and the state lawmakers made sure that SSM was illegal in the state. She had no problem with that. When the government decided that marriage is a right for anyone no matter who they marry, the woman decided to not do ANY marriage licenses and instead asked that it be someone else who signs the license. That is a reasonable accomodation, IMO.
I am not aware that was her stated purpose.
From my understanding, she has been ordered released and her deputies have been giving out marriage licenses since she has been jailed and they will continue. I wonder if they still have her name on it despite the fact that she's not actually signing them.
Doesn't matter what two of the Justices say as far as the rule of law goes. A decision was reached by the court interpreting law and that's supposed to be the precedent until someone follows procedure to change it.
Right--that was the way it was with Dred Scott!
The Court should have stayed out of this issue and left it up to the states. Ginsburg and the others should have kept their reprobate and unnatural ideas to themselves. Frankly, Ginsburg is a barbarian.
The process has proceeded the way the process is supposed to proceed. if you don't like the outcome, fix the process.
Right! It's just like Dred Scott!
In another thread on another forum Chris Buono did a masterful analysis of the legal aspects:
"Remember in Civics class where we learned that Congress makes the laws and the Supreme Court interprets them? Ok, in 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) into Federal law stating that marriag was between a man and a woman.
There was no Federal Law concerning marriage prior to that, so DOMA became THE Federal statute pertaining to marriage. The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that PART of DOMA was unconstitutional and some states voted to allow same sex marriage. However, they were in conflict with the remaining articles of DOMA.
The way Federal Laws work is that state law can be MORE restrictive but it cannot be less restrictive than Federal law. So, some states, who voted to recognize same sex marriage were in conflict with Federal Law. Which is the reason the Supreme Court heard the issue again this year.
We all know their decision. But, what we apparently forgot is that since they can't make law, their decision to declare DOMA unconstitutional resulted in there being NO federal law concerning marriage. Which means, jurisdiction falls to the state.
And what that means . . . is that Kim Davis IS NOT in violation of ANY law by refusing to issue marriage licenses after the SCOTUS ruling. In fact, if she had issued a license to a same sex couple, she would have been in violation of the state laws of Kentucky (KRS 402-020), which had voted no on the issue.
Congress failed to be prepared to handle the situation resulting from SCOTUS striking down DOMA by writing a new Federal Law so we are left with the issue being handled at a state level. In the states that voted no on this issue, same sex marriage is not Federally protected.
Like it or not, agree with it or not, that's the way the law works in this country.