KY Bill would exempt clerks from issuing gay marriage licenses>>MOD WARNING<<

Anti-gay people. They think that it is bigoted to be against bigotry. And they tried to deny our civil rights.

 

You think I oppose gay marriage?

I oppose the circumventing of the legislavtive process and I oppose the total disregard for the Bill of Rights - any libertarian would.

If our government is going to legalize gay marriage they do it the RIGHT way - the democractic way....

What happened here is disgusting and a mockery of democracy.

 

This is what a Writ of Mandamus is for. They may be immune from simply turning them away but no public official is immune from a court order like that when issuing a license is part of their job. Public officials don't get exemptions

 

What state do you live in?

 

Here is how this is going to end:

Someone will sue the state.

The state will lose because of the supreme court ruling and the law will be rendered ineffective.

The state will have to pay oodles of money AND marry the gay couple.

The state will appeal. The court will refuse to hear it.

The end.

Congrats KY. You've done nothing but cost your state money and delay the inevitable.

 

Few are bigoted against gays... Sorry but disagreeing with gay marriage doesn't make one bigoted.... I know in the progressive mind anyone who doesn't agree with you HATES you but that is only YOUR delusions and only an attempt to get what YOU want by minimizing the opposition...

I am bigoted against progressives - I hate all progressives so I'm not going to sit here an lie because I'm not dishonest.

 

Ummm do you understand how our government works???? By your post it does not seem like you have a clue. County clerks can be held personally liable?? Maybe you should go look things up before spouting off.

 

No but when you use religion to deny a basic right it makes one a bigot. If you want to go live in a theocracy by all means do. But please do not call yourselves patriots or Americans. The founding fathers would tell you that you are not.

 

No, the scouts CANNOT just manifest (*)(*)(*)(*) that doesn't exist.... Perhaps they can claim refusing marriage licenses to gays is discrimination tho.

But hey you don't care just as long as you get what you want by any means.... (*)(*)(*)(*) the legislative process right?

Be careful of the precedent this sets because this can and most likely be used against you.

 

It's no different than sanctuary cities, or Colorado selling recreational pot.

Both are against federal law, but it still doesn't stop liberal states from ignoring federal law.

This is what happened when presidents refuse to do their primary duty to enforce the law.

Liberals only have themselves to blame

 

Religion plays ZERO role in my philosophy, and I'm not even opposed to gay marriage - I'm opposed to the mockary of democracy..... BTW, the founding fathers hated the idea of a SCOTUS...

I represent the founding fathers ideologies to a T.

I'm the patirot for calling you progressives out on your total support of circumvention of the Constitution...

- - - Updated - - -

Like I said two seconds ago - the precedent they set will be used against them.

 

Five activist liberals masquerading as judges did just that. And that's what makes their ruling unbinding; because it violates both our law and our constitutional freedoms.

 

Ummm you have been so wrong on everything in your posts in this thread move along.

- - - Updated - - -

What law?? A law that was found by the court to be unconstitutional . Oh exactly what is our law ??? Haha

 

What constitutional freedom are you being denied?

 

I've been 100% right..... Go read what Thomas Jefferson thought about the SCOTUS....

You like every progressive is wrong - which is why you need to circumvent democracy and run to the SCOTUS when democracy gets in your way...

- - - Updated - - -

Well for one a democratic vote on the issue.

 

Nope, what it was is the SC ruling on the legality of laws that discriminate and their ruling puts an end to any such laws. Pass any laws you wish but if they are not supported by the Constitution then they will be struck down. Funny that people always whine about the SC when they rule against them, I think you would be singing their praises had they ruled the other way.

 

I love it when people support states not adhereing to federal immigration laws or drug laws but when states oppose an idea progrssives support - LAW IS LAW.....

Which is why I hate progressives and this federal government becuse progressives pick and choose which laws are valid and which ones aren't.... Oh and I totally support the decriminalization of drugs AND obviously the Tenth Amendment - however those issues need to be dealt with via legislation...

 

The court can't rule the First and Tenth Amendments to be unconstitutional. Only a legislative act passed by Congress, signed by the President, and passed by 3/4 of the States can do that. And as you should know, Kentucky law defines marriage as between a man and woman.

 

For citizens, the First Amendment; for states, the Tenth Amendment. Those are the constitutional freedoms that I am referring to, and the ones people like you are attempting to take away from us via judicial activism; not by due process as laid out in our constitution.

 

Which is why the Founding Fathers were opposed to the notion of the Supreme Court.

 

No. It lays out the principals behind Marxist theory and concludes with Marx stating that revolution is inevitable and calling for the workers to unite.

In case you haven't noticed, racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. all have a major negative effect on the world.

Yes, and that's why I'm opposed to current norms. Because normalizing oppression lessens the amount of freedom in the world.

Can you stop punching that strawman and actually argue with my ideas?

You really don't know what you're talking about. This entire conversation has just been you yelling "You're a fascist. Look at these bad things you never advocated for, these make you a fascist and you're a fascist for agreeing with them."

 

Please describe how these amendments are being violated. This should be good.

 

It's a Commie trick to subvert the constitution. If we use their idiotic precedent against them, then we are merely aiding their goal of destroying the constitution.

What we really need is a president who will rule with an iron fist, and force states to uphold federal law. Start tossing governors and mayors in prison who willfully violate the law of the land.

It's the only way.

 

This nonsense is reminiscent of the same hysterical reactions to the flag-burning ruling in 1989 [Texas v Johnson]. The bible-belt states lead the stupid charge for theocracy in the US.

 

I have read the damn book....

People have the right to be biased or racist and you attempting to prevent it is an act of AUTHORITARIANISM which is not anarchy and NOT liberal....

In short you're really just an authoritarian that's running around pretending to be an anarchist (which is absolute libreralism).