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.
I suspect that when Ms. Davis gets out; she will be invited to speak at several conservative gatherings; perhaps a book will follow. Huckabee is planning to visit her next week.
Speaking? My gosh!
I expect that she'll soon be out with a (ghost-)written book - whoever is writing all those 'history' books supposedly written by Bill O'Reilly is probably available. It'll be a bestseller.
Then there's her upcoming show on Fox News, to say nothing of her joining the faculty at Glenn Beck University - Department of Oppressed Christians Studies, perhaps?
She's golden. The money's going to be flowing in. All she has to do now is stay in jail long enough to really solidify her perceived-martyrdom in the eyes of the We-Christians-Are-The-REAL-Victims crowd and she'll be set for life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino
Ms. Davis made the issue of reasonable accommodation moot when she refused to delegate the issuance of marriage licenses to her deputies. In doing so Ms. Davis placed the Rowan County Clerks Office, not Kim Davis, in direct non-compliance with the law. This places the issue not within the context of personal liberty but rather within the context of government power vs the established rights of its citizens.
Just to be clear - regarding the reasonable accommodation comments, I was referring to the Muslim flight attendant who was suing over the fact that she's expected to serve Martinis as part of her job. A situation dealing with a public employee denying something which is a fundamental right is a whole 'nother ball of wax.
Completely wrong. The supreme court doesn't have special powers to change the founding principles of this country, that is called tyranny. They have really overstepped their bounds in many cases that have set so-called precedents in this country. The problem is that the supreme court may outrank myself, but it does not outrank the US Constitution or the American people, and when the government goes against its Constitutional contract it is no longer required for the citizens to follow the governments policies. Look up nullification. The fact of the matter is that forcing gay marriage on the people of states that do not approve of it is just as ridiculous as forcing a law through that bans gay marriage in every state, even states that do approve of it.
The problems with your argument are numerous. Again, you are one of these people that seems to have gotten through life without any civics education. I can only conclude the high schools are failing the country dreadfully in this area. Perhaps, every person who offers a similar opinion should be forcefully strapped in front of a television set and forced to watch lectures on DVD of a school course in basic constitutional principles.
Now, let's deal with the silly argument you're trying to make:
1. The Supreme Court cannot change the principles upon which this country was founded, but its a constitutional principle that the Supreme Court gets to interpret what the Constitution means and other branches of government have to accept that interpretation. Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803).
2. Until the Supreme Court either overrules a prior decision or until a Constitutional Amendment is enacted changing the court's interpretation of a law, the Supreme Court has not "overstepped its bounds". The point is the Court gets to say what the law is and not you, or Christian Conservatives, Socialist Marxists, Democrats, Republicans, or any other single group.
3. If the Supreme Court truly tries to "outrank" the American people it will lose when an amendment is made to our Constitution that changes an interpretation of the law that the people dislike. Until that happens, you can't say it has tried to "outrank" the American people.
4. The principle of nullification of laws by individual states has been expressly rejected by the Supreme Court in Cooper v. Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958). In this case, the state of Arkansas tried to avoid having to desegregate its schools in accordance with earlier Supreme Court cases. The court held that "nullification" was not a valid principle of law and cited cases that go back to the early 1800's in support of that proposition.
5. I'm sure you personally don't like the idea of gay people being able to marry one another. However, that's not what we are even talking about. Until you can understand that, you can't really participate in an intelligent discussion of these issues.
That's how are system works whether you like it or not.
Just to be clear - regarding the reasonable accommodation comments, I was referring to the Muslim flight attendant who was suing over the fact that she's expected to serve Martinis as part of her job. A situation dealing with a public employee denying something which is a fundamental right is a whole 'nother ball of wax.
Putting aside the public employee aspect, but even if the airline made an accommodation so that she was able to opt out of serving alcohol, leaving her coworkers to handle that, it's still not the same situation. It would have to be that she was saying that no alcohol could be served on board at all, since it was objectionable to her.
Completely wrong. The supreme court doesn't have special powers to change the founding principles of this country, that is called tyranny. They have really overstepped their bounds in many cases that have set so-called precedents in this country. The problem is that the supreme court may outrank myself, but it does not outrank the US Constitution or the American people, and when the government goes against its Constitutional contract it is no longer required for the citizens to follow the governments policies. Look up nullification. The fact of the matter is that forcing gay marriage on the people of states that do not approve of it is just as ridiculous as forcing a law through that bans gay marriage in every state, even states that do approve of it.
Nullification. Huh. I suggest you go all the way back to the Federalist Papers and the actual history since then. Nullification has not been upheld.
Perhaps at Disney World there could be Nullificationland, right next to Fantasyland.
While you make valid points, one thing that I don't think has changed over long periods of history is that there are a bunch of people who have/always will have a deep passion for a given religion. There are ALOT of very religious people in this country/around the world and as long as they are here, you will get individuals like this KY woman who believe their version of God rules above all. I'm not saying this right/wrong. Just stating that religion, just like people, is not a here today/gone tomorrow element of society as in the examples you make above. Numbers of people following religion may rise/fall, but there always seems to be a great number of them in just about any society, including the US.
A balanced response, Steve; thank you. But what I think is changing in terms of religion is less thinking along the lines of "I belong to the _____ Church", and more along the lines of "I am a religious person, but you can't put a label on me that identifies a specific denomination".
This is a key issue. I think many are failing to see the activist nature of courts these days. And how elements of the Constitution are being thrown aside. Even some of the SCOTUS comments after a ruling point out this very issue. Our forefathers would be rolling in their graves at what's going on now on our selective nature of following this/but not that part of the Constitution and other sets of laws. But most of the herd is asleep or is obviously buying into all of this as "normal". And what the heck.....if someone can get away with it, they will keep pushing the envelope.
I'll tell you why I disagree with that. "The founding Fathers". What does that really mean? That they all were of a similar mind? Not at all. There was probably far more bitterness in politics over the course of the first few administrations than there is today.
I expect that she'll soon be out with a (ghost-)written book - whoever is writing all those 'history' books supposedly written by Bill O'Reilly is probably available. It'll be a bestseller.
Yeah, they can call it "Killing Kim Davis", since that's what so many people on this Forum, and across the US, would like to do. She's fat, she's a Christian, she disagrees with Buzzfeed. String her up.
A balanced response, Steve; thank you. But what I think is changing in terms of religion is less thinking along the lines of "I belong to the _____ Church", and more along the lines of "I am a religious person, but you can't put a label on me that identifies a specific denomination".
What do you feel the ramifications are of believing in such a way, positive or negative, for those who don't label themselves in such a way? Seems many who believe in Jesus, perhaps like the woman in KY, use the common umbrella that I think many use today, "I'm Christian".
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
I'll tell you why I disagree with that. "The founding Fathers". What does that really mean? That they all were of a similar mind? Not at all. There was probably far more bitterness in politics over the course of the first few administrations than there is today.
Sure, I bet they indeed had more than a few skirmishes that were very heated.
As to your question, right off the top of the my head, one particular thing that comes to mind is John Adams and his view on the place we find ourselves in today with a 2 party system:
Watching what is going on today with our 2 party system, I can think of numerous examples why this founding father was spot on with his concern and is indeed rolling in his grave right now over what our political system has become on many levels.
Government approves a contract btw 2 consenting adults, legalizing their intercourse, their emotional attachment, their property rights, taxation, and care of dependents.
That's 'marriage', a friggin' contract. Just stop with the B.S. of 'Till death does you apart'. Totally fine with me to leave the word marriage to shysters and churches with no legal meaning whatsoever to the state. Calling it civil union contract is just the needed reality to take this fake romantic over-promise out which too many have when getting together.
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.
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.
