Ky. County clerk makes a stand against feds

[Sonny Tufts]

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.

 

[wizardwatson]

Only in your dreams.



Allowing gays to marry has no effect whatsoever on a hetero marriage.



What is uneducated is the moronic notion that a Supreme Court decision is unlawful. Better take 9th grade civics again.



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.



That's your opinion, but it isn't the law.



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.

Yeah, I get it, the law is whatever the Supreme Court says. If they interpret that the moon is made of swiss cheese then the law says it's cheese.

I already answered your segregation argument on another thread, which is the only one you've given.

 

[JK/SEA]

ok...we got a few pages in this thread now, what have we decided?

 

[tod evans]

ok...we got a few pages in this thread now, what have we decided?

Folks would rather discuss homo marriage than buckin' the feds...

 

[wizardwatson]

Only in your dreams.

I didn't want to repeat myself so I went back to the SCOTUS thread I created when this decision was announced to see if you were discussing it then...

SCOTUS legalizes Gay Marriage - 10th Amendment Obliterated
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...izes-Gay-Marriage-10th-Amendment-Obliterated/

..and you were. And you haven't changed your stance. Consistent I guess.

You fail to acknowledge still that what SCOTUS did was REDEFINE marriage. That's what they did. They didn't "extend" protections, because everyone was able to marry within the confines of the accepted definition. Gays are allowed to get married under the traditional meaning. Gays want to change the meaning to marry another guy or gal. That's a different thing.

If you change the definition unilaterally then, sure, it becomes a 14th amendment issue and in line with racial segregation.

But it's only because the definition is changed simultaneously that this logic applies.

I doubt you will accept that fact, since you haven't in the old thread.

 

[surf]

probably my last post on this topic (mild background applause)....

to me this is a freedom issue. it's a freedom issue for the gal operating under god's authority in that she is trying to deny certain freedoms, and it's a freedom issue for those that want to be free to marry.

the only workable answer here (and everywhere) is to let freedom rein. (thud - the sound of the mic hitting the floor as I walk away)

 

[tod evans]

I didn't want to repeat myself so I went back to the SCOTUS thread I created when this decision was announced to see if you were discussing it then...

SCOTUS legalizes Gay Marriage - 10th Amendment Obliterated
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...izes-Gay-Marriage-10th-Amendment-Obliterated/
.

Here's one of my posts from that thread that's in line with this thread;

This might bring fed-gov's power and authority into question.......

And that would be a good thing!

 

[Sonny Tufts]

You fail to acknowledge still that what SCOTUS did was REDEFINE marriage.

If you think they did, then so did the Loving court. In those states with anti-miscegenation laws marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman of the same race. Interracial couples could not get a marriage license, and the marriages of those who wed in other states weren't recognized.

 

[wizardwatson]

If you think they did, then so did the Loving court. In those states with anti-miscegenation laws marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman of the same race. Interracial couples could not get a marriage license, and the marriages of those who wed in other states weren't recognized.

If I say the "murder" is actually knocking someone out then I'm wrong.
If I say cutting someone's head off is NOT "murder" then I'm also wrong.

If I add race to the definition of marriage I'm wrong.
If I subtract gender from the definition of marriage I'm also wrong.

That's the objective stance.

Now given that subjectively we do have people who are polygamist or think it's ok to marry same gender the "grey area" should definitely be a state's rights issue and not something that the federal government unilaterally changes for every person in the country.

Like I said, this is your only real argument it seems, and it isn't applicable.

Segregation prevented people from getting married. Traditional marriage doesn't prevent people from getting married.

Marrying "whoever I want" is a different thing. I may want to marry someone else's wife, that doesn't mean I get to ask SCOTUS to nullify another mans marriage because we're "really in love".

 

[GunnyFreedom]

AP reporting that a judge has just ordered her to jail.

 

[Occam's Banana]

What is uneducated is the moronic notion that a Supreme Court decision is unlawful. Better take 9th grade civics again.

LMAO. Ya gotta love legal positivism!

After all, where else are you going to see 9th-grade civics classes cited as dispositive of SCOTUS as soi-disant ultimate arbiter of lawfulness?

Chicken, meet egg. Egg, meet chicken ...

 

[juleswin]

AP reporting that a judge has just ordered her to jail.

The highway robber fighting the street level pick pocket. If it was up to me, I would let both thieves fight each other until a mutual defeat. Couldn't the justices just cut her pay to zero and be done with it?

 

[tod evans]

AP reporting that a judge has just ordered her to jail.

In before the Romans 13 excuses.....

 

[Sonny Tufts]

If I subtract gender from the definition of marriage I'm also wrong.

Why? I've yet to hear a valid reason for not permitting same-sex marriage, and "it's always been that way" hardly qualifies.

Segregation prevented people from getting married. Traditional marriage doesn't prevent people from getting married.

Segregation prevented interracial couples from marrying, and laws mandating "traditional marriage" prevented same-sex couples from marrying. I don't see the difference.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

After all, where else are you going to see 9th-grade civics classes cited as dispositive of SCOTUS as soi-disant ultimate arbiter of lawfulness?

SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter only in the short run, since even its decisions on constitutional law can be overturned in a number of ways.

 

[wizardwatson]

Why? I've yet to hear a valid reason for not permitting same-sex marriage, and "it's always been that way" hardly qualifies.

Nature?

Segregation prevented interracial couples from marrying, and laws mandating "traditional marriage" prevented same-sex couples from marrying. I don't see the difference.

Because you've already redefined marriage in your mind. You're not alone, polling shows that a majority of American's have done this as well. However, one of the key factors of this gay marriage issue (in this thread) is that Kentuckians have not.

Recreational pot is legal in a few states now. That doesn't mean the federal government has the right to say recreational pot, or strip clubs, or seatbelt laws, should be enforced in every state.

Anyway, this whole argument is very nuanced. And the mob has already made it's decision and mob rule is pretty much what this country has become. It seems the way everyone wants it is for the Fed's to enumerate the state's powers (which I suppose in the future will simply be how to collect taxes) instead of the Constitutions way of the state's enumerating the fed's powers and everything else will be decided by SCOTUS who changes definitions of words and concepts to suit the will of the majority.

It's a dead horse really. People seem to be on one side or the other. The greys are disappearing as the days go by.

 

[Occam's Banana]

SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter only in the short run, since even its decisions on constitutional law can be overturned in a number of ways.

Then ipso facto SCOTUS is not the ultimate arbiter. Make up your mind.

What would your 9th-grade civics class textbooks say should SCOTUS rule that that such an attempted overturning is unconstitutional (or otherwise "unlawful")?

After all, you told us earlier that "the ... notion that a Supreme Court decision is unlawful" is "uneducated" and "moronic" ...

 

[wizardwatson]

Then ipso facto SCOTUS is not the ultimate arbiter. Make up your mind.

What would your 9th-grade civics class textbooks say should SCOTUS rule that that such an attempted overturning is unconstitutional (or otherwise "unlawful")?

After all, you told us earlier that "the ... notion that a Supreme Court decision is unlawful" is "uneducated" and "moronic" ...

Yeah, I said it was "unlawful" in the sense that it was a bad unconstitutional decision. He wants to strawman left and right as if I didn't understand that the "SUPREME" courts decisions carry the weight of the law.

I let it go. It gets boring defending against straw man attacks all day long.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Its hardly shocking that civics classes are going to teach statism. One more reason to homeschool.

 

[William Tell]

AP reporting that a judge has just ordered her to jail.

Wow. Remember when everyone was making fun of social conservatives for saying this was coming?