Ted Cruz: Once Obama resigns, we can talk about clerk Kim Davis.

[erowe1]

States that refuse to enforce federal drug law should be punished. People who refuse to enforce federal immigration law should be in jail.

Do you really believe that? Or are you just saying that to show how absurd it is?

 

[Sola_Fide]

It's astonishing that you can't distinguish between government action and private action.

It's astonishing to me how much of a statist you are. How have you survived on this forum so long?

 

[twomp]

Marriage benefits are not a fundamental right. Show me where gays were ever forbidden from entering into contracts? You don't even know what you're talking about, like most people who discuss this topic.



Glad some people see it, and I'm not even a Christian but I certainly realize when you guys fall, it's all over, cuz the Straight, White, Christian, Males all have a bullseye on them, and I fit 3 of the 4.



I disagree, I am a centrist if you will, not religious at all, but I realize how incredibly fucked up it is to put someone in jail for refusing to do something that goes against their religion, those that will argue "it's her job" - well, we could have a discussion on that, but even humoring that mindset for a moment they could reassign her somewhere else.

I can't believe we live in a society where anyone actually believes throwing someone in jail for having a different political view is not about the scariest thing they've seen their whole lives.



What are they trying to "enforce" nitwit? She used no force on anyone, force was used on her, how dumb are you?

AWWW look at the bible thumper get all mad.... Sorry you are butthurt that you aren't successful in getting the government to do what your bible tells you to do. Its YOUR bible not the rest of ours. Throwing a temper tantrum makes you look like the moron. Go pray harder maybe you will get your way.

 

[erowe1]

For those who support this use of violence by the federal government to force a local government to govern the way the federal government tells it to, would you also support the federal government sending its armed agents to use lethal force to compel a clerk in Baghdad to issue same-sex marriage licenses?

I don't see the difference between that and this.

 

[erowe1]

AWWW look at the bible thumper get all mad.... Sorry you are butthurt that you aren't successful in getting the government to do what your bible tells you to do. Its YOUR bible not the rest of ours. Throwing a temper tantrum makes you look like the moron. Go pray harder maybe you will get your way.

Do you know you said this in reply to a quote that contained the words, "I'm not even a Christian"?

 

[Krugminator2]

For those who support this use of violence by the federal government to force a local government to govern the way the federal government tells it to, would you also support the federal government sending its armed agents to use lethal force to compel a clerk in Baghdad to issue same-sex marriage licenses?

I don't see the difference between that and this.

I'll state the obvious. I am not sure if that is some weird anarchist reasoning or what is going on. Baghdad is not in the United States. Iraq is not governed by the US Constitution.

Kentucky is in the United States. I am quite certain Kentucky is not its own sovereign nation. They are still subject to the Constitution.

 

[Krugminator2]

Marriage benefits are not a fundamental right. Show me where gays were ever forbidden from entering into contracts? You don't even know what you're talking about, like most people who discuss this topic.

Benefits are not a fundamental right. That is completely true. There should be no be no monetary benefit associated with marriage, but there are benefits though. A straight person can leave their assets tax free to their spouse. A homosexual who passes would not be able to leave assets tax free to their partner without marriage. You can't extend those kinds of benefits to one group and not the other. That is not just immoral, it is unconstitutional.

There is no material difference between excluding benefits for homosexuals and denying someone benefits based on race.

 

[erowe1]

I'll state the obvious. I am not sure if that is some weird anarchist reasoning or what is going on. Baghdad is not in the United States. Iraq is not governed by the US Constitution.

Kentucky is in the United States. I am quite certain Kentucky is not its own sovereign nation. They are still subject to the Constitution.

I don't see why that makes a difference morally. Isn't the Constitution supposed to be based on the premise that the states are sovereign and the federal government only has the powers they delegate to it?

More importantly, what's the Constitution? Where does its authority come from? If this action is immoral, then writing a constitution that empowers someone to do it won't make it moral.

 

[erowe1]

You can't extend those kinds of benefits to one group and not the other. That is not just immoral, it is unconstitutional.

It's neither immoral nor unconstitutional.

Furthermore, issuing gay marriage licenses does nothing whatsoever to lessen this inequality that's inherent to government marriages. The real inequality in government marriage isn't between straight and gay, but between married and unmarried. All that redefining "marriage" accomplishes is to shift the boundary between those two groups from one place to another. But you still end up with some people being counted as married and others as unmarried.

 

[HankRicther12]

AWWW look at the bible thumper get all mad.... Sorry you are butthurt that you aren't successful in getting the government to do what your bible tells you to do. Its YOUR bible not the rest of ours. Throwing a temper tantrum makes you look like the moron. Go pray harder maybe you will get your way.

You don't read so well do you? I'm not a Christian, certainly not a "bible thumper", but congratulations on showing your ignorance...again.

I'll state the obvious. I am not sure if that is some weird anarchist reasoning or what is going on. Baghdad is not in the United States. Iraq is not governed by the US Constitution.

Kentucky is in the United States. I am quite certain Kentucky is not its own sovereign nation. They are still subject to the Constitution.

Yes, but where does the Constitution say anything about 1. People getting marriage benefits 2. The definition of marriage, which has been around since the dawn of man, can be changed by 5 judges in a robe and then subsequently forced on a population of 335million people, the bulk of whom have a religious objection to it - a right that IS found in the Constitution.

Benefits are not a fundamental right. That is completely true. There should be no be no monetary benefit associated with marriage, but there are benefits though. A straight person can leave their assets tax free to their spouse. A homosexual who passes would not be able to leave assets tax free to their partner without marriage. You can't extend those kinds of benefits to one group and not the other. That is not just immoral, it is unconstitutional.

There is no material difference between excluding benefits for homosexuals and denying someone benefits based on race.

What are you talking about? Any Benefit by it's very existence will always be extended to one group and not another, how can it possibly be otherwise? I hear this absurd logic from libertarians/anarchists over and over. First off, this benefit is being denied to many people - single people, polygamists, incest, etc, and many of those, heck even pedophilia have more historical precedence than GM.

There is nothing immoral about saying some relationships are normal and how we evolved to be, and some are not. I am not in favor of marriage benefits, but the fact is the only reason any society has ever had them is for one reason, to join a man and woman, to suddenly say it's "hip to be gay" so now we all have make up a new definition for marriage (but don't let those polygamists or mothers/sons in cuz it's OK to use MY moral standards regarding sexuality) which violates millions of Americans religious beliefs, aside from being ridiculous in and of itself, is unconstitutional.

 

[Krugminator2]

It's neither immoral nor unconstitutional.

Furthermore, issuing gay marriage licenses does nothing whatsoever to lessen this inequality that's inherent to government marriages. The real inequality in government marriage isn't between straight and gay, but between married and unmarried. All that redefining "marriage" accomplishes is to shift the boundary between those two groups from one place to another. But you still end up with some people being counted as married and others as unmarried.

The bolded part is completely true. That's one more reason to have a flat tax and no inheritance tax.

But the fact of the matter is you do have inheritance taxes over a certain amount. You can't exclude a group based on sexual orientation. If you take your line of reasoning, you would have to logically conclude that it would have been perfectly okay for Alabama to exclude all black kids from going to public school.

 

[HankRicther12]

It's neither immoral nor unconstitutional.

Furthermore, issuing gay marriage licenses does nothing whatsoever to lessen this inequality that's inherent to government marriages. The real inequality in government marriage isn't between straight and gay, but between married and unmarried. All that redefining "marriage" accomplishes is to shift the boundary between those two groups from one place to another. But you still end up with some people being counted as married and others as unmarried.

BRAVO!!!

The bolded part is completely true. That's one more reason to have a flat tax and no inheritance tax.

But the fact of the matter is you do have inheritance taxes over a certain amount. You can't exclude a group based on sexual orientation. If you take your line of reasoning, you would have to logically conclude that it would have been perfectly okay for Alabama to exclude all black kids from going to public school.

Except that we do, which has been mentioned over and over, but people just ignore their own hypocrisy.

 

[Krugminator2]

Yes, but where does the Constitution say anything about 1. People getting marriage benefits 2. The definition of marriage, which has been around since the dawn of man, can be changed by 5 judges in a robe and then subsequently forced on a population of 335million people, the bulk of whom have a religious objection to it - a right that IS found in the Constitution.

What are you talking about? Any Benefit by it's very existence will always be extended to one group and not another, how can it possibly be otherwise? I hear this absurd logic from libertarians/anarchists over and over. First off, this benefit is being denied to many people - single people, polygamists, incest, etc, and many of those, heck even pedophilia have more historical precedence than GM.

There is nothing immoral about saying some relationships are normal and how we evolved to be, and some are not. I am not in favor of marriage benefits, but the fact is the only reason any society has ever had them is for one reason, to join a man and woman, to suddenly say it's "hip to be gay" so now we all have make up a new definition for marriage (but don't let those polygamists or mothers/sons in cuz it's OK to use MY moral standards regarding sexuality) which violates millions of Americans religious beliefs, aside from being ridiculous in and of itself, is unconstitutional.

The 14th Amendment applies to gay marriage.

I think polygamists should be able to get married. I don't think you can exclude them. Pedophiles should not be able to because there is issue with minors and their ability to give consent. For the same reason you can't marry animals. Animals can't give consent. Religious people can't terrorize the minority. Just because a majority wants to extend rights to some groups and not others doesn't mean they should be able to. Basic rights are not subject to vote.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

It's astonishing to me how much of a statist you are. How have you survived on this forum so long?

It's not astonishing to me how obtuse you are. Some day you may learn that describing what the law is doesn't mean that one is in favor of the law being described.

My point was that while private discrimination should be allowable in a libertarian framework, discrimination by the government (assuming there is some minimal form of government) should not be.

 

[Krugminator2]

Except that we do, which has been mentioned over and over, but people just ignore their own hypocrisy.

I am certainly not hypocritical on denying rights to people based on sexual orientation. As long as you do not harm others, then your lifestyle should not be discriminated against. Pedophilia or beastiality are doing harm to minors. The problem with incest is the whole having retarded kids things, which means it probably should be illegal.

I am totally okay with polygamous marriage.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The definition of marriage, which has been around since the dawn of man, can be changed by 5 judges in a robe and then subsequently forced on a population of 335million people, the bulk of whom have a religious objection to it - a right that IS found in the Constitution.

Allowing gays to marry doesn't affect the right of those opposed it it to practice their religious faith -- that is, unless you believe the practice of your religion includes the right to have the government incorporate your personal theology into law and apply it to others who don't share your faith.

While gay marriage may hurt someone's religious sensibilities, there is no right to not be offended.

 

[Danke]

It's called "the accepted definition". Scalia (or Roberts, can't remember) remarked in his dissent that was the legal definition (as in, that's what the definition was in lawyer dictionaries, one man one woman).

People who fail to see this as a redefinition (like even Rand Paul does), are way off base saying "where does it say they can't". It doesn't say dogs can't marry people either. You don't need to clarify that because it's not defined that way.

Saying what you're saying Zippy, to me, is the same as saying "where does it say knocking someout out isn't murder?" It isn't murder because murder is defined as taking someone's life. It isn't marriage because marriage is defined as two different genders entering into it. Polygamists have more ground to stand on than gays when it comes to marriage and for some reason SCOTUS didn't put the stamp of approval on them.

 

[wizardwatson]

I am certainly not hypocritical on denying rights to people based on sexual orientation. As long as you do not harm others, then your lifestyle should not be discriminated against. Pedophilia or beastiality are doing harm to minors. The problem with incest is the whole having retarded kids things, which means it probably should be illegal.

I am totally okay with polygamous marriage.

Isaac is the son of Abraham and Sarah. Abraham was Sarah's half-brother.

Are you calling Jesus retarded? Cuz I take offense to that.

 

[Danke]

It's neither immoral nor unconstitutional.

Furthermore, issuing gay marriage licenses does nothing whatsoever to lessen this inequality that's inherent to government marriages. The real inequality in government marriage isn't between straight and gay, but between married and unmarried. All that redefining "marriage" accomplishes is to shift the boundary between those two groups from one place to another. But you still end up with some people being counted as married and others as unmarried.

Yep

 

[hells_unicorn]

I am certainly not hypocritical on denying rights to people based on sexual orientation. As long as you do not harm others, then your lifestyle should not be discriminated against. Pedophilia or beastiality are doing harm to minors. The problem with incest is the whole having retarded kids things, which means it probably should be illegal.

I am totally okay with polygamous marriage.

Doing harm to another individual is not necessarily a good standard for a stance on this issue if you are intent on equivocating sodomy with natural marriage and procreation. Homosexual men do all kinds of harm to each other when engaging in rectal intercourse medically speaking, as is the case when a man does it to a woman. There are other things that so-called "consenting adults" do to each other that can constitute physical harm, particularly in gay bathhouses that I think warrant some discrimination on public health grounds.

Oh, and I'm not okay with polygamous marriage either. In Islamic countries, if you have lots of money and power, you get to have 4 wives and an unlimited number of concubines, whereas if you are poor, you're in danger of being stuck buggering sheep or goats because there aren't any women left after the elites have gobbled them all up. It's the same story in Mormonism, just look up the term Lost Boys (not the film).