Quote:And the people of Kentucky, through their elected official, are telling the Court to get bent. Sometimes you have to take a stand against federal encroachment on state issues, otherwise you end up subjugated to the bureaucracy.
Yeah who cares if something is constitutional or not. You guys are so weird in your love of the constitution but only when it suits your beliefs. Guns great. Unlimited money in politics fantastic. Equal rights for American citizens? bump that noise, STATES RIGHTS!!!!!! BUREAUCRATIC OVER REACH!!!! Once again, discrimination will fall to history and they will find yet another group to despise.
Just so we are on the same page here, you are advocating for willfully doing something that has been ruled as unconstitutional.
Quote:Yeah who cares if something is constitutional or not. You guys are so weird in your love of the constitution but only when it suits your beliefs. Guns great. Unlimited money in politics fantastic. Equal rights for American citizens? bump that noise, STATES RIGHTS!!!!!! BUREAUCRATIC OVER REACH!!!! Once again, discrimination will fall to history and they will find yet another group to despise.
Just so we are on the same page here, you are advocating for willfully doing something that has been ruled as unconstitutional.
Yes, I advocate for civil disobedience when the federal government oversteps its bounds into state matters. I thought you already knew that about me?
The Federal Government didn't overstep it's bounds into "state matters". Several states laws banning gay marriage were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Much like in Loving v. Virginia.
But hey. Keep listening to the Empty Rhetoric of Mike Huckabee if you like.
Quote:Yes, I advocate for civil disobedience when the federal government oversteps its bounds into state matters. I thought you already knew that about me?
The states were violating the constitution. So do you actually care about upholding the constitution or just paying it lip service.
The mental gymnastics it takes to justify support for discrimination must be staggering.
Quote:Some people are just awful hateful people with a persecution complex. This event has shown me that Huckabee has become the Al Sharpton of this "movement". Cruz tried to jump on board.
And this is main reason I can't support him. I've seen him talk during debates and gets his views across very well, looks comfortable and has some good ideas, but than he has absurd moments like this.
Quote:This is relevant to the discussion... why?
How is it not? Do you not see the hypocrisy? Divorcing ones wife and marrying someone else is taught as adultery. I'm not going to go into it more than that, but people believe what they believe to fit their agenda.
The funniest part of all this is that a government employee refused to do her job responsibly while drawing a paycheck and 2 Republican presidential candidates rushed to defend her right to do so.
Awesomesauce......
Quote:The states were violating the constitution. So do you actually care about upholding the constitution or just paying it lip service.
I'm sorry, gay marriage isn't a federal matter. Technically marriage isn't a government matter at all. Instead of going the proper routes through the legislature the pro-gay marriage crowd went for redefinition by judicial fiat, the antithesis of the Constitution. Someday it will be a ruling that you don't favor and you'll piss and moan about how awful it is to be ruled by 9 Oligarchs, and I'll just sit back and say "You let it happen."
That's my issue with you guys on most of these matters, as long as you get what you think you want now you have no concern for the precedent you're setting and how it will come back to bite you in the [BLEEP] someday. But that's just my hate and fear talking, because humans have never ever abused the power of government before in history and we have nothing to worry about.
Quote:I'm sorry, gay marriage isn't a federal matter. Technically marriage isn't a government matter at all. Instead of going the proper routes through the legislature the pro-gay marriage crowd went for redefinition by judicial fiat, the antithesis of the Constitution. Someday it will be a ruling that you don't favor and you'll piss and moan about how awful it is to be ruled by 9 Oligarchs, and I'll just sit back and say "You let it happen."
That's my issue with you guys on most of these matters, as long as you get what you think you want now you have no concern for the precedent you're setting and how it will come back to bite you in the [BLEEP] someday. But that's just my hate and fear talking, because humans have never ever abused the power of government before in history and we have nothing to worry about.
The bolded text is my only issue with what you posted, and the crux of the matter. I, and others, are not a "pro-gay marriage" crowd, we are an "equal rights crowd". There's a big difference, and that difference is why the SCOTUS was appropriately involved.
Take marriage out of the hands of government, you have a point. The problem is government IS involved.
Quote:I'm sorry, gay marriage isn't a federal matter. Technically marriage isn't a government matter at all. Instead of going the proper routes through the legislature the pro-gay marriage crowd went for redefinition by judicial fiat, the antithesis of the Constitution. Someday it will be a ruling that you don't favor and you'll [BAD WORD REMOVED] and moan about how awful it is to be ruled by 9 Oligarchs, and I'll just sit back and say "You let it happen."
That's my issue with you guys on most of these matters, as long as you get what you think you want now you have no concern for the precedent you're setting and how it will come back to bite you in the [BAD WORD REMOVED] someday. But that's just my hate and fear talking, because humans have never ever abused the power of government before in history and we have nothing to worry about.
You are so completely wrong in your assumptions I don't even know where to start.
I'm sorry but marriage is a federal matter that's just the way it is and has been for a while therefore it had to be addressed since states were discriminating against American citizens. I know you wholeheartedly approve of this but the majority of the country and the supreme court did not. They were in direct violation of the constitution so a ruling was made, the same kind that affirms gun ownership by citizens but Im sure that was government over reach as well.
This is the differences between you anti government knuckleheads and the rest of us. When you do don't like something like in the case of the this supreme court ruling that gasp all people are created equal you cry and moan and scream religious persecution of governmental over reach by 9 unelected justices. You get presidential candidates to tell people to practice unconstitutional acts.
Liberals clearly dislike the ruling in the case of Citizens United. So what are some of us doing? Telling people to willfully go against the ruling of constitutionality? No because that is dumb. We decide to try to get a convention to add an amendment so it's not constitutional anymore. Why don't you try that? I am sure it would be easy peasy to get an amendment passed to allow discrimination based on well I guess anything if you had your way.
This is just another instance of you guys thinking you are all star spangled patriotic because you love the constitution and the country but in fact you really don't like America. You like 50 years ago America but definitely not the modern one we have now. If whining about not being able to discriminate against fellow Americans makes you feel better knock yourself but that's in the past.
Quote:.....
This is just another instance of you guys thinking you are all star spangled patriotic because you love the constitution and the country but in fact you really don't like America. You like 50 years ago America but definitely not the modern one we have now. If whining about not being able to discriminate against fellow Americans makes you feel better knock yourself but that's in the past.
Whewwww, this deserves a gold star. Right on.
Quote:You are so completely wrong in your assumptions I don't even know where to start.
I'm sorry but marriage is a federal matter that's just the way it is and has been for a while therefore it had to be addressed since states were discriminating against American citizens. I know you wholeheartedly approve of this but the majority of the country and the supreme court did not. They were in direct violation of the constitution so a ruling was made, the same kind that affirms gun ownership by citizens but Im sure that was government over reach as well.
This is the differences between you anti government knuckleheads and the rest of us. When you do don't like something like in the case of the this supreme court ruling that gasp all people are created equal you cry and moan and scream religious persecution of governmental over reach by 9 unelected justices. You get presidential candidates to tell people to practice unconstitutional acts.
Liberals clearly dislike the ruling in the case of Citizens United. So what are some of us doing? Telling people to willfully go against the ruling of constitutionality? No because that is dumb. We decide to try to get a convention to add an amendment so it's not constitutional anymore. Why don't you try that? I am sure it would be easy peasy to get an amendment passed to allow discrimination based on well I guess anything if you had your way.
This is just another instance of you guys thinking you are all star spangled patriotic because you love the constitution and the country but in fact you really don't like America. You like 50 years ago America but definitely not the modern one we have now. If whining about not being able to discriminate against fellow Americans makes you feel better knock yourself but that's in the past.
If you like your discrimination, you can keep your discrimination. Thanks, Obama!
Quote:The bolded text is my only issue with what you posted, and the crux of the matter. I, and others, are not a "pro-gay marriage" crowd, we are an "equal rights crowd". There's a big difference, and that difference is why the SCOTUS was appropriately involved.
Take marriage out of the hands of government, you have a point. The problem is government IS involved.
Absurd, no one has a right to get married.
Quote:This is just another instance of you guys thinking you are all star spangled patriotic because you love the constitution and the country but in fact you really don't like America. You like 50 years ago America but definitely not the modern one we have now. If whining about not being able to discriminate against fellow Americans makes you feel better knock yourself but that's in the past.
The easiest tell is anyone who refers to the 50's as "the good ol days"
Quote:Absurd, no one has a right to get married.
This spat isn't about the right to get married.
This spat is about equal protection under the law (14th Amendment).
And, as JIB eloquently pointed out, the Rule of Law.
She made an oath (so help her God) to do her job.
If she doesn't, she deserves punishment.
If she can't due to personal reasons, she should look for another job her conscience will allow her to do.