I never said it wasn't changeable I said there is no leg for this judge to stand on for him to put her in jail
Na I never flunked anything We have an amendment that protects our right for guns we have a 14th amendment that is being changed to cater certain agendas which the amendments should not be open for discussion unless there is ratification to one of them Does gay marriage affect me personally no should they have the same rights yes Should gays impose their beliefs on others no Could this situation been avoided yes How by going to a different county Did they make a mockery of her yes Is this more important than the Iran deal or soviet subs coming close to the u.s. Coast no Are American people worried about petty issues yes Who cares if a homosexual wants to have to pay joint taxes that's on them A homosexual had to pay an estate tax on her girlfriend because they were not married whine some more Children have to pay estate taxes on parents property all the time Did a homosexual judge not grant straight people marriages yes did she get thrown in jail no Is this a one way street I think not
Kingcalm don't always think your the smartest person in the room because there will be one time in your life you should have kept your mouth shut and you didn't and it will bite you in the ass
Ok don let's look at the 14th amendment shall we? 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. See what that says is that you can't make a law that only applies to some American citizens, by denying LGBT couples the right to marry the bans on same gender marriages were denying them the equal protections of the law, and removing a privilege that others enjoyed. So having looked at the entire support for your counter argument I can't see how you justify your continued objections.
The difference is Don, I learn from my mistakes, and I do research so I have a clue what I'm talking about. You do neither. It's sad that you have no idea how the law works, or how our freedoms are protected. What's worse is that you have no drive or wish to understand anything either. Which is why you keep repeating the most idiotic things, and can't respond to anyone's statements (other than to cut and paste from someone who is happy to delude you). If someone has a superior argument to one of mine, I'm happy to hear it. And unlike you, I'll actually consider it. But in cases like this, a person either understands American law and how it works, or they don't (or are being purposefully obtuse). When someone tries to take your guns away, or tries to implement Sharia law using the arguments you are making, you will run to someone like me who actually understands the law, to protect your rights. I tried to help you.
this coming from a guy who says 95% of scientist believe in climate change but what he failed to realize it was 95% of 75 people
Now look at the Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Don, the 10th Amendment doesn't overule it because it was determined to be a Constitutionally Protected Civil Right. It therefore isn't up to the States to decide how to interpret it, it is now protected by the Constitution as the Constitution is currently written without amendment. Thats how legal proceedings work. They determined it was indeed a protected civil right by the Constitution. Oh, and good news. Now all the states who fought it owe the attorney fees for those who fought for this right.
Don't bother DMC, he doesn't have a solid enough grasp on reality to understand explanations or reason.
"Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex." Page 32 of the Ruling (Above) The ruling being the protected right of gay marriage. Page 29 of the Ruling (Below) Of course, the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, so long as that process does not abridge fundamental rights. … The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The Nation’s courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act. The idea of the Constitution “was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts.”
I am not talking about gay marriage I am saying the judge had no right to put the clerk in jail for not issuing licenses because it violated her religious views Does that make sense to you Gay marriage is nothing more than a civil union between to persons who can not procreate No one is denying that gays can not have the same equal rights
When she is acting on behalf of the State refusing to give guaranteed rights and in direct violation of a court order to act in accordance with the law them yeah... she kind of can be jailed. Hell, if they wanted to sue her for it they'd have a pretty solid case against her (the people she refused licenses to).
As the court, they only have the authority to enforce penalties for offenses such as contempt of court, which she committed by refusing to obey her court order.
The only way she would be able to be jailed is if the civil contempt was ruled as criminal which there is nothing criminal about her refusing because of her religion Just like if a Muslim was running a cash register at a wal mart or food store that sells any pork products they have the right to be removed so it doesn't violate her religion You all screaming that I am providing proof that guns can be taken away and that I am wrong but in reality America is defined by the laws which are supposed to be enforced not just to pick and choose which ones they need to over look Just because a president can auto pen an executive order does not mean it is truly law with out the consent of congresses approval That is government 101 There are reasons why everything has to go thru certain steps that is just the nature of the beast
you guys should stop picking on me and donny (pout) weve got like a right to say whateva we think even if doesnt make any sense (giggle)
. This whole argument was already answered by at least one person don you can keep on ignoring it but you just look more ridiculous the more you keep banging on about this.
The militia sent armed guards to protect Kim Davis. Pew pew STATE RIGHTS Dr. Ben Carson (Baltimore,Md) - "This is a Judeo-Christian Nation." (don't blame me, I don't control any militias or politicians)