Kim Davis

#326
#326
1972 Grad said:
I am having trouble comprehending a lot of this mess tonight. I'm thinking drugs or alcohol is available near some computers.
Click to expand...

Here, I'll help you in English:

Keep your mother-loving ass out of people's private lives and they'll let you be as big of a cheese-ass as you please.

Does that help?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#327
#327
hog88 said:
I have absolutely accounted for myself. If marriage were an established right regulated by the Feds, they would set the rules. It is not therefore the differences in state laws allowing discrimination in various cases.

The Federal Courts have ruled that if a state/county issues marriage licenses they must be issued to both gay and straight. They also must recognize marriages from other states. Great, that's how it should be. What the Federal Courts can't do is force a state or county to issue marriage licenses.
Click to expand...

I think you may need these...
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    71.3 KB · Views: 0
#328
#328
volfanhill said:
Interesting to me that the people who are against the Feds being involved in marriage didn't say anything until homosexuals were allowed to. Where were you twenty years ago?
Click to expand...

My only objection is the Federal Courts reaching into a case the state should have handled by either changing the law or enforcing the current one.
 
#329
#329
82_VOL_83 said:
Only thing I comprehend out of this post is that you can't answer my last question. I didn't think you would because it won't fit your ridiculous agenda.
Click to expand...

"my agenda", whats that?













If you guessed laughing at you rage so hard you spill PBR all over your keyboard, you might be getting warm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#330
#330
hog88 said:
I have absolutely accounted for myself. If marriage were an established right regulated by the Feds, they would set the rules. It is not therefore the differences in state laws allowing discrimination in various cases.

The Federal Courts have ruled that if a state/county issues marriage licenses they must be issued to both gay and straight. They also must recognize marriages from other states. Great, that's how it should be. What the Federal Courts can't do is force a state or county to issue marriage licenses.
Click to expand...

Holy ****.

You're still talking.

Okay, little bird, then I say neither the federal nor state governments should grant you a right to run your company out of their county. Move to another, and I say they refuse you as well.

You're a dumbass, aren't you?

Look, just let people live in peace. Will you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#332
#332
Septic said:
It doesn't need to be expressly stated, nitwit.

But if your wondering where in the Constitution the protection is afforded - according to Justice Kennedy, the 14th. More specifically marriage is a liberty protected by the due process clause. For the gays, the due process and the equal protection clause won them their right to be recognized.
Click to expand...

There is no right to marriage nitwit. It is NO WHERE in the Constitution. If you would like to argue that the benefits shared by people that are married should be afforded to others that wish to enter civil unions, then I will agree with that. In other words, equal protection. And yes, the stretch is that it should apply to anyone that wishes to enter into a legal union now.

What you are trying to do is convince the thread that all religious texts should be changed to fit your beliefs or lack thereof. What I am trying to get you to see is that if you substitute civil union for marriage license, all the BS that has gone on in this country for decades on this subject would be moot. But in typical liberal fashion, your side of the argument is all about you. It's not about accommodation, it's about your way period.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#333
#333
gcbvol said:
Absolutely. There is merit with positions on both sides of the issue, but tons of whining and dramatics acting to dilute. That's what this whole KY thing has become - drama, whining and political pandering to top it off.
Click to expand...

Yep. Should have been straight forward removal of her and we all move on but instead it has become the ultimate persecution of Christians and the ultimate example of Theocracy in America/American Taliban. She's Joan of Arc or Osama Bin Laden.

Outrage is America's favorite new reality show.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#335
#335
volprof said:
Holy ****.

You're still talking.

Okay, little bird, then I say neither the federal nor state governments should grant you a right to run your company out of their county. Move to another, and I say they refuse you as well.

You're a dumbass, aren't you?

Look, just let people live in peace. Will you?
Click to expand...

You're to dam stupid to realize I'm not arguing gay marriage. I'm arguing the Fed Courts overstepped their bounds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#336
#336
Septic said:
"my agenda", whats that?













If you guessed laughing at you rage so hard you spill PBR all over your keyboard, you might be getting warm.
Click to expand...

Rage? Don't flatter yourself. If you had an argument that had an ounce of sense, I might become "emotionally invested". What you are pushing is straight up BS.
 
#339
#339
82_VOL_83 said:
There is no right to marriage nitwit. It is NOWHERE in the Constitution. If you would like to argue that the benefits shared by people that are married should be afforded to others that wish to enter civil unions, then I will agree with that. In other words, equal protection. And yes, the stretch is that it should apply to anyone that wishes to enter into a legal union now.

What you are trying to do is convince the thread that all religious texts should be changed to fit your beliefs or lack thereof. What I am trying to get you to see is that if you substitute civil union for marriage license, all the BS that has gone on in this country for decades on this subject would be moot. But in typical liberal fashion, your side of the argument is all about you. It's not about accommodation, it's about your way period.
Click to expand...

Bla bla bla.

Wake me up when you get appointed to the SC and author the majority opinion that overturns Kennedy's.

In the mean time, my suggestion that you expedite this legal gem you've uncovered to the Davis Defense Team™.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#340
#340
1972 Grad said:
Is that thing supposedly a female?
Click to expand...

Honestly I don't know. For the longest time I contributed it to gender neutrality. But, as time has passed, just self loathing. He obviously hates what he is, and his only recourse is to project the anger.
 
#342
#342
Obsessed said:
Honestly I don't know. For the longest time I contributed it to gender neutrality. But, as time has passed, just self loathing. He obviously hates what he is, and his only recourse is to project the anger.
Click to expand...
I thought someone had said that it was a she. I bet it's a baby doll if so.
 
#345
#345
hog88 said:
You're to dam stupid to realize I'm not arguing gay marriage. I'm arguing the Fed Courts overstepped their bounds.
Click to expand...

No, I know you well. I know exactly what you're arguing. And I don't give a crap what you think about state's rights concerning how marriage should work.

The Supreme Court, for all its flaws, made the right decision. And thank god we don't have to rely on people like you anymore to make said decisions.

Tell me, what is the difference between marriage and school access?

I'm not going to say you're against Brown v. Topeka, because I don't believe that. That would be especially low even for you. But please tell me why this is different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#348
#348
Septic said:
Bla bla bla.

Wake me up when you get appointed to the SC and author the majority opinion that overturns Kennedy's.

In the mean time, my suggestion that you expedite this legal gem you've uncovered to the Davis Defense Team™.
Click to expand...

Another post with no substance. Why don't you just say "since I am for what they did, I am cool with activist judges running my life for me?" I personally don't give two craps about Kennedy. I have read the Constitution and I quite honestly believe I have a better grasp of it than he does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#349
#349
82_VOL_83 said:
Rage? Don't flatter yourself. If you had an argument that had an ounce of sense, I might become "emotionally invested". What you are pushing is straight up BS.
Click to expand...

I think the concepts being used in here have confused you but you want to be seen as someone with something important to say. You're not sure what to do, so you just lash out.

The standard is to start hurling pejoratives like "liberal" and "socialist". Maybe call me a Obama lover or a Clinton bootlicker.

Get started there, I hear it's good for "likes."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#350
#350
volprof said:
No, I know you well. I know exactly what you're arguing. And I don't give a crap what you think about state's rights concerning how marriage should work.

The Supreme Court, for all its flaws, made the right decision. And thank god we don't have to rely on people like you anymore to make said decisions.

Tell me, what is the difference between marriage and school access?

I'm not going to say you're against Brown v. Topeka, because I don't believe that. That would be especially low even for you. But please tell me why this is different.
Click to expand...

The SCOTUS did make the right decision in regards to gay marriage. The courts made the wrong decision to go after a stupid county clerk in this case.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top