boyst Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 They didn't want her thrown in jail... Didn't they want fines? But, the judge threw her in jail. Like that will have any effect on a true religious zealot (if she really is one)? Wouldn't jail just galvanize their ideals even more. If it was really important to me, I would rot in there. 3 hots and a cot. When's the next election? Maybe she would just wait it out. Something this major and having to put your name on a license going against your God... Isn't that major? Don't the laws of God come first over country? I wonder if she will crack... I hope she doesn't. you really want to make a mockery of this? Fine her $500,000. In an hour she would have $500,001 donated to pay it. Hell, any bail is the same thing. Go read that link that B-Man posted. There is absolutely no easy way out of this and someone is going to be left holding the bag of **** and it sure as hell ain't going to be the lady in jail right now, as crazy as that sounds. Does the Democratic governor have the balls to stand up in a Republican state and issue an order against state law? Does the Federal judge risk making an order further separating state and country by telling the deputy clerks to circumvent state and local law? Does Obama step in (HA!)? Does the lady cave and give up? Does the Gov call a special session of the state government to order to attempt to change the law here? This is not a soap opera. This is not an issue of romantic religious ideologies. This is an issue of state rights vs. federal rights. If anyone thinks it is more then they are lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 you really want to make a mockery of this? Fine her $500,000. In an hour she would have $500,001 donated to pay it. Hell, any bail is the same thing. Go read that link that B-Man posted. There is absolutely no easy way out of this and someone is going to be left holding the bag of **** and it sure as hell ain't going to be the lady in jail right now, as crazy as that sounds. Does the Democratic governor have the balls to stand up in a Republican state and issue an order against state law? Does the Federal judge risk making an order further separating state and country by telling the deputy clerks to circumvent state and local law? Does Obama step in (HA!)? Does the lady cave and give up? Does the Gov call a special session of the state government to order to attempt to change the law here? This is not a soap opera. This is not an issue of romantic religious ideologies. This is an issue of state rights vs. federal rights. If anyone thinks it is more then they are lost. The bolded. There's ample precedent, and not many would have a problem with it, because very few people see this as anything other than a "Gays good/bad!" issue. I'll say it again: were I a state governor, I would have suspended the issuance of all marriage licenses with the Supreme Court's decision, on the basis that if the federal government is assuming the responsibility of defining marriage from the states, they can assume the responsibility of licensing it as well. That would be an appropriate line in the sand, not what this friggin' dingbat is doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 The bolded. There's ample precedent, and not many would have a problem with it, because very few people see this as anything other than a "Gays good/bad!" issue. I'll say it again: were I a state governor, I would have suspended the issuance of all marriage licenses with the Supreme Court's decision, on the basis that if the federal government is assuming the responsibility of defining marriage from the states, they can assume the responsibility of licensing it as well. That would be an appropriate line in the sand, not what this friggin' dingbat is doing. but think of the children Jesus! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 but think of the children Jesus! I am thinking of Jesus. He's doing the lawn right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 I am thinking of Jesus. He's doing the lawn right now. Poor Tom. He gets to see other people being outside in the sun, he just can't join them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Poor Tom. He gets to see other people being outside in the sun, he just can't join them... What do I need the sun for, when you're the light of my life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted September 4, 2015 Share Posted September 4, 2015 Can opened, worms all over the floor.... The Supremes ruled that gays have a "right" to marriage, while this lady has claimed her Constitutional right of religious freedom. The 1st states that "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment, nor the free exercise thereof..... " In it, we have a challenge of a Constitutional right vs a perceived right through case law. This very act seems to say that case law can trump the Constitution. If that is in fact the case, how long before we begin to force churches and pastors to violate their beliefs or be thrown in jail? Personally, I like Tom's idea... Since the fed decided to interject, let them now bare the responsibility of issuing licenses... Or, just give it back to the churches where it started.. Why the F### is the government involved anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Crap, I thought this was another Obama thread, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 (edited) 2 summers during college my dad made me work "blue collar jobs" so that "I would know what I'd be doing if I didn't finish". It may surpise, but college was touch and go for me for quite a while. I wasted a lot of time, and $(thankfully not mine, or my family's), not realizing that perspective on a subject is just as important as the content. When that pentrated my skull, class became important, and taking tests, getting Bs, and not showing up for class, ever, became less cool. I wised up. I should have got my MBA, but, like a junior that leaves school early for the draft: when I got my schit together, the $ was there. Given all this wonderful sentiment? I'm highly qualified to tell all of you: "the working man" is often the "punch in at 7am, on time, always...so that we can take the truck 40 minutes away and eat breakfast for an hour" man. He's the "I'm a master welder, plumber, electrician and see this belt buckle? National Champion backhoe guy(no, really, I have seen the buckle), so I do what I want". The hilarious part for people like me, given the balancing act I've done working my job in traditional blue collar industries? "It's not bragging if you can do it" applies just as much to CEOs as it does belt buckle guy. Both of them will talk schit in the bar: it's only a matter of which bar. The bottom line: Everbody who truly believes they are competent has a line. They won't cross it, because doing so makes them incompetent. This is the #1 premise of my methodology: those lines can be all over the place. But, when we start demanding that everybody have the same line? We not only lose liberty, we lose individuality. Edited September 5, 2015 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Crap, I thought this was another Obama thread, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 The bolded. There's ample precedent, and not many would have a problem with it, because very few people see this as anything other than a "Gays good/bad!" issue. I'll say it again: were I a state governor, I would have suspended the issuance of all marriage licenses with the Supreme Court's decision, on the basis that if the federal government is assuming the responsibility of defining marriage from the states, they can assume the responsibility of licensing it as well. That would be an appropriate line in the sand, not what this friggin' dingbat is doing. Yep... I have been saying it for years. Make everybody equal and recognize nothing. Feds want to pick and choose... Leave it up to them. See the mess they made with immigration. LoL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Can opened, worms all over the floor.... The Supremes ruled that gays have a "right" to marriage, while this lady has claimed her Constitutional right of religious freedom. The 1st states that "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment, nor the free exercise thereof..... " In it, we have a challenge of a Constitutional right vs a perceived right through case law. This very act seems to say that case law can trump the Constitution. If that is in fact the case, how long before we begin to force churches and pastors to violate their beliefs or be thrown in jail? Personally, I like Tom's idea... Since the fed decided to interject, let them now bare the responsibility of issuing licenses... Or, just give it back to the churches where it started.. Why the F### is the government involved anyway? Historically, marriages originated with governments, not religion. The Church should stay out of Government business! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 5, 2015 Share Posted September 5, 2015 Historically, marriages originated with governments, not religion. The Church should stay out of Government business! Historic ally, religion and government were one and the same. Separation of church and state is less than 300 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 For the gov't... Tax everybody as an individual. A woman in today's day does not need to be tied to a man's name. No riding the coattails of another. Everybody, gender, straight, gay, whatever need to make their mark in the world. Only reason people get married in the eyes of the state is for benefits. Where is it going to stop if society keeps liberalizing everything. We are headed to financial ruin. Both sides of every equation needs to be balanced. There is no reason why gov't can't start separating itself from the whole union/marriage business. Everybody is an individual connected to their own name. Gov't should just get out of the whole union/marriage business. Everybody fend for themselves in this world. Minor children of course can latch on to one of the parents benefits. If people want to get married, do it in the eyes of their God and/or religion only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 For the gov't... Tax everybody as an individual. A woman in today's day does not need to be tied to a man's name. No riding the coattails of another. Everybody, gender, straight, gay, whatever need to make their mark in the world. Only reason people get married in the eyes of the state is for benefits. Where is it going to stop if society keeps liberalizing everything. We are headed to financial ruin. Both sides of every equation needs to be balanced. There is no reason why gov't can't start separating itself from the whole union/marriage business. Everybody is an individual connected to their own name. Gov't should just get out of the whole union/marriage business. Everybody fend for themselves in this world. Minor children of course can latch on to one of the parents benefits. If people want to get married, do it in the eyes of their God and/or religion only. There are other legal benefits outside taxes. Property ownership, inheritance...and one of the big motivators for gay marriage has been medical. Practices at the start of the AIDS epidemic, where long-term partners could be barred from seeing a dying partner by family who'd been estranged for 20 years, are a significant and mostly forgotten issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) There are other legal benefits outside taxes. Property ownership, inheritance...and one of the big motivators for gay marriage has been medical. Practices at the start of the AIDS epidemic, where long-term partners could be barred from seeing a dying partner by family who'd been estranged for 20 years, are a significant and mostly forgotten issue. I know... It is is so sticky. But if rules and structure are broken down, liberalized... Where does it all end? What about plural marriages? Why is that discriminated against and considered "wrong." Whatever floats your boat right? Edited September 6, 2015 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 What about plural marriages? Why is that discriminated against and considered "wrong." Whatever floats your boat right? It's already gone to court. I'm waiting for the result before I file for the right to marry my cats. I really need the extra tax deductions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 It's already gone to court. I'm waiting for the result before I file for the right to marry my cats. I really need the extra tax deductions. /priceless Don't give my wife and her three cats any ideas! Maybe I should go in the basement and start digging out the camping gear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cinga Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 Historically, marriages originated with governments, not religion. The Church should stay out of Government business! Good idea... And maybe government should reciprocate?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 6, 2015 Share Posted September 6, 2015 (edited) Good idea... And maybe government should reciprocate?? The seperation between church and state SHOULD put neither above the other. Gay marriage just may be the donnybrook that destroys that equilibrium. Be careful what some wish for. We are the land of good intentions and unintended consequences! Unfortunately, both sides do not know how to moderate. There is absolutely no compromise w/this debate. One side wants recognition and equality while the other side treats it as a sin akin to murder. How the heck can this resolve itself? Edited September 6, 2015 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts