Govt workers have right to refuse gay marriage licenses -pope

1. The 14th didn't "free" the slaves. That was the 13th A.
For someone who pretends to know about the Constitution, you should at least know the basics.

2. It was not just about the ex-slaves. All black persons, slave and free were not citizens of the country they were born. It included them in the Amendment
and included all person's born...[yadayada] are citizens of the US.

 

The first sentence was, the rest reinforced the ideals of the Bill of Rights including all citizens and people under the jurisdiction/authority of the country/state. The USSC has always had the final say on disputes between states or citizens of states when their constitutional rights have been subjected to tyrannical supremacists.

No I asked why it wasn't a problem in one case/situation but not suited/improper for the other. And as of yet no one has answered the question. I disagree with decisions based on the actual facts of the case, not talking points from political demagogues. You should try it some time.

For example, in the case of the ACA, I think the court (actually individuals within the court misused the power of the court) over reached their authority. For one thing they didn't have to interpret anything, the lawmakers were there to explain specifically what the law was meant to say. It was never meant to be a tax, period, and the court by defining at a tax, even though the legislators who wrote the law clearly stated it wasn't, cannot be seen as anything but a misuse of power. This would be the same as having a witness on the stand say that they saw the accused perpetrator pull a gun and shoot the victim in the head, and the judge interject and say, no what you meant to say was, you heard shots but never saw the shooter, and ordered the court recorder to stricken the testimony given by the witness and replace it with 'they cannot be sure, because they didn't see anything'.

The court should have said since it is not a tax, the way it is written it is unconstitutional, thank you have a nice day back to the drawing board.

----------

Election disputes should be handled by voters, not a court. There should have been a recall and another election to determine the winner, without all the dangling chads, and the shenanigans perpetrated by the state. The court could have stopped all the BS by allowing the voters to do their job.

------------------------

In this case the courts were asked to settle a dispute based on the inequality of the law and property rights. A marriage as far as government is concerned is a contract. The government offers benefits for being involved in a committed relationship. There are also over a 1000 rights/benefits associated with being in a government sanctioned committed relationship. The court determined that that was a violation of equal protection under the law, and since being gay isn't illegal, the unconstitutional part was stricken from the law. Not something new.

It was ratified. You just don't like the fact it was.

 

I'm not going to lie saying the 14th wasn't ratified, when it was ratified. Sadly their are some people that don't like that we have the 14th amendment and will try and claim it wasn't ratified within the guide lines to fit with their agenda. I disagree with Paperviews views on the South and I have that right but I don't have the right to force people to view things my way or go back where you came from. Kim as a member of the state does not have the right to force her morals on others as she is denying their rights to liberty via the constitution.

And wasn't it the 13th amendment that freed the slaves? Now I'm confused as heck as to what we're debating.

 

Yes the 13th amendment freed all slaves and the practice of involuntary servitude (nice way of saying slave). The 14th amendment reinstated them as legal citizens due to their birthright, and reinforced the notion that discriminating through legislation, or creating laws to artfully relinquish 'any' citizen/person under the jurisdiction/authority of the country/state would not be tolerated. The intent and the wording is extremely clear, but articulate, unless you have an ulterior agenda to pursue.

 

1) The Pope has no authority in this matter. He's only in charge of his own Church, not our government.

2) Apparently the meeting he had with Kim Davis wasn't an 'audience'; more like she was one of several people he greeted very briefly.

3) The Vatican has since clarified that it is not making an endorsement of Kim Davis' beliefs and actions.

 

It's worse than that.

What an embarrassment for Kim Davis, her lawyers and her supporters who were so hepped up when they first heard about her meeting with the pope.

The POPE ! everybody!!!! She met with the man closest to God hisself!

Now they wake up to see this Reuters headline:
"Sense of regret' in Vatican over pope meeting with gay marriage opponent"
VATICAN CITY | By Philip Pullella
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/02/us-usa-pope-kentuckyclerk-idUSKCN0RW0UN20151002'

*Ouch*

The people he did give a special meeting to? A gay couple. *double ouch* (sorry kimmy)



"The only real audience granted by the Pope at the Nunciature (Vatican embassy) was with one of his former students and his family," the statement said.

The Vatican later confirmed on Friday that the pope met with Yayo Grassi, a U.S.-based Argentine caterer who is gay and brought his male partner of 19 years to the meeting."