Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-23-2017, 02:53 PM
 
Location: West Virginia
16,583 posts, read 15,502,808 times
Reputation: 10819

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pinacled View Post
Same sex unions were only denied a marriage licence.
Because Marriage is defined as between a male and female of 18yr old.

So Where is a valid argument for the Supreme court to even hear the case.?

Corruption
the process by which something, typically a word or expression, is changed from its original use or meaning to one that is regarded as erroneous or debased.
A perversion of Justice
The Supreme Court hears appeals of cases that deal with federal laws, provisions of the Constitution and the Amendments, and adjudicates issues between the States. The claim was made that same sex couples were being denied "equal protection under the law" as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Having a question about the application of an Amendment certainly made it an appropriate issue to bring before the Supreme Court. Their decision was that the "equal protection" clause did indeed apply to the various marriage laws of the States.

That is the valid argument that brought the case before the Supreme Court.

You can certainly disagree with their decision (I've disagreed with a couple of their decisions over the years), but the appropriateness of bringing the case before the Court is obvious.

So, that brings this question: On what basis is it that you think the plaintiffs in this case were NOT entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment?
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: //www.city-data.com/terms.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-23-2017, 03:09 PM
 
8,669 posts, read 4,752,657 times
Reputation: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
The Supreme Court hears appeals of cases that deal with federal laws, provisions of the Constitution and the Amendments, and adjudicates issues between the States. The claim was made that same sex couples were being denied "equal protection under the law" as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Having a question about the application of an Amendment certainly made it an appropriate issue to bring before the Supreme Court. Their decision was that the "equal protection" clause did indeed apply to the various marriage laws of the States.

That is the valid argument that brought the case before the Supreme Court.

You can certainly disagree with their decision (I've disagreed with a couple of their decisions over the years), but the appropriateness of bringing the case before the Court is obvious.

So, that brings this question: On what basis is it that you think the plaintiffs in this case were NOT entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment?
Corruption, this is perversion of the 14, thusly stripping it from the constitution. Which equates to Treason

The Established Defined Laws were that man and woman constitutes a marriage.

The only subject is the definition of Marriage.
The definition of the established order male,.female marriage does not constitute grounds for equal rights under the law
or entitlements pertaining to such unions.
The case should have never been heard.

Corruption
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2017, 03:18 PM
 
9,345 posts, read 4,280,065 times
Reputation: 3022
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinacled View Post
Corrupt, yes.
Discipline

Treason, with certainty.
Then take it up with Jeff Sessions and DOJ. Until charges are laid your claims are unfounded, disgusting, slanderous and to top it off violates your own religion Ten Commandments. Your argument is irrational, uncivil and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the law works.

Based on your unfounded accusations, personal insults and failure to show that you even wish to carry on a proper and civil discourse with others I am now putting you on my small ignore list.

And it's Badlander, a person from the Badlands not some poorlanding whatever that may be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2017, 03:21 PM
 
8,669 posts, read 4,752,657 times
Reputation: 408
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/civil_rights
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2017, 03:27 PM
 
439 posts, read 341,968 times
Reputation: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift View Post
Yes you have. You are listening to their demagogues now. They may not be as overt, but they are just as poisonous.
Nate I saw you live in Southern Oregon
We are buying a house which is closing next week but took a trip there about 18 months ago. Loved it!
Considered buying in Gold Beach (or in Fort Dick near Crescent City in California) which we traveled thru.
Except Crescent City and Coos bay felt depressing. Since those were the two main activity hubs, ultimately decided against it.

Gold beach had a really friendly store owner who sold fudge in her shop. Then there was this cute little
health food store on your way to Coos Bay but I've forgotten the town. Do you happen to know it?
Remaining open to moving to Oregon but down the line.
I changed my profile upon joining to reflect living in Sierra City though the home won't close until next week.
Hopefully we'll like it and I won't be snowed in having difficulty getting to and from work

To respond to your statement, I agree. This being a forum, shutting off the computer is the easy solution to crazies. To experience shunning first hand, how in-human and Hitler-ish it felt, had me growing up quite fast at 16. I mean you couldn't even TRY to pretend they were saved, or even human. Refusing to admit smoking is not barred in the bible while others got drunk on weekends and gluttony was a huge issue (as it is everywhere) but ignored. And it is specifically mentioned as sin.

Funny I work with a JW who just got hired. Had to announce her religion to us during our meeting. She's been avoiding doing her job using her religion as an excuse. Now it's the challenge of helping with our annual party for the clients because of the origin of Halloween. I think she really feels we are all worshiping the devil by having a party. Twisted stuff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2017, 03:36 PM
 
8,669 posts, read 4,752,657 times
Reputation: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander View Post
Then take it up with Jeff Sessions and DOJ. Until charges are laid your claims are unfounded, disgusting, slanderous and to top it off violates your own religion Ten Commandments. Your argument is irrational, uncivil and demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the law works.

Based on your unfounded accusations, personal insults and failure to show that you even wish to carry on a proper and civil discourse with others I am now putting you on my small ignore list.

And it's Badlander, a person from the Badlands not some poorlanding whatever that may be.
How so, are you going to change the definition of corruption to accuse me with God's Law.?

Interesting, since God's Law only speaks of a Marriage as being between a man and a woman.

For my part in the discussion about secular legalities.
The only definition of Marriage is between male., female.

So how is there any validation for the supreme court to even hear the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2017, 03:58 PM
 
8,669 posts, read 4,752,657 times
Reputation: 408
Simply put the Judicial branch ursurped the executive branch in jurisdiction first.
Then dictated that same sex unions are now defined by the Judicial branch and are to be given licenses, subsequently all powers report to the Judicial branch to dictate what a lawfull union is.

This overreach is tantamount to treason in regards to even what was stated by a Supreme Justice themself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2017, 04:18 PM
 
8,669 posts, read 4,752,657 times
Reputation: 408
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessi...stian_churches
'Some scholars maintain that scripture in the original languages contains no prohibition of homosexuality, but does record same-sex marriage.'


And then traversely you have false information about the Scriptures.
There are no such scholars
Which is why the "Bible" is invalidated to those that oppose all that Are Gods Laws.

Last edited by pinacled; 10-23-2017 at 04:27 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2017, 04:20 PM
 
10,800 posts, read 3,546,606 times
Reputation: 5950
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander View Post
The judge ruled that the taxpayers have to pay the couples legal fees such as their attorney and court fees. Instead you have accused a federal judge of being corrupt and accepting bribes (or going along with that accusation from another poster).

Either way that is false accusation or false testimony against another. One is only left with the assumption that you think you are above God and his Ten Commandments. The judge did rule that if the State had taken action against Davis it would have been her not them on the hook for legal fees.

The case would of cost the State more than 220K has they would have had to pay their own lawyers as well.it is common knowledge that a government violating a citizens rights illegally ends up paying at least the legal costs. As well remember the judge considers himself a devout Christian and is personally opposed to SSM but he does live up to his oath of maintaining the kaw.

Maybe her religious backers who with her believe that Christians only have to follow laws and regulations they agree with should be footing the cost, putting their money where their beliefs are.
I asked pinacled the same question, and to provide references. Of course, he didn't nor could he.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2017, 04:23 PM
 
10,800 posts, read 3,546,606 times
Reputation: 5950
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinacled View Post
You are not focusing.
Discipline in understanding a foundation of truth first.
Marriage is between a man and woman.


So why was same sex union even considered?
SCOTUS rulings have determined otherwise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top