Sonny Tufts
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2012
- Messages
- 2,925
Your argument has been debunked by me
Only in your dreams.
Adding a qualifier of race diminishes it just the same as subtracting a gender qualifier.
Allowing gays to marry has no effect whatsoever on a hetero marriage.
She is resisting unlawful federal intrusion. If you want to call this a "George Wallace" moment like the rest of the mainstream media and incorrectly parellel this with interracial marriage, I suppose that's your perogative. It works well with the uneducated.
What is uneducated is the moronic notion that a Supreme Court decision is unlawful. Better take 9th grade civics again.
Your divorce analogy doesn't work because it's an issue of state's rights, not "a judge doing what he wants". It would most definitely be a failure to perform duty if a California judge or clerk was pulling this stunt because gay marriage is legal in that state BUT IN KENTUCKY gay marriage has a constitutional ban.
But Obergefell and the 14th Amendment trump Kentucky law, a point you have difficulty in grasping. And Davis isn't basing her defiance on Kentucky law or on state's rights, but upon her religious views.
Again, my stance is that SCOTUS violated the 10th and 1st amendments on a political whim.
That's your opinion, but it isn't the law.
The constitution is the highest law, but it allows states to make their own laws based on a higher authority.
Huh? You really need to take that civics class -- you may learn something about the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause. Seriously, your "States' Rights" argument is precisely the same argument that the segregationists made in response to Brown, and it should be obvious (except to the terminally dense) that this doesn't mean anyone who makes the argument is racist. Here, take this test and see if you can distinguish between the statements made in opposition to Brown and those made in response to Obergefell:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/07/06/segregation_or_same_sex_marriage_take_our_quiz.html
Look, many people of good faith disagree with Obergefell. Fine. But like it or not, it's the law and to call it "illegal" is pure nonsense based upon abysmal ignorance of the way the law works. Call it wrong, misguided, poorly-reasoned, or politically-correct, result-oriented overreach. But don't be an idiot and call it illegal.