Posts by Rattigan350

175

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

Rattigan350

Orphancrow, when you said "Those principles are exactly the principles that legalizing gay marriage is based upon - the right of the minority."

You are not right. The principles of the first amendment keeps the government away from people. Nothing to do with numbers. In fact the articles defined the government roles, but then they discovered that they forgot to elaborate the rights of the people. So they made the Bill of Rights. Those rights are to protect what the WTS does not give people, speech and religion.

But the gay marriage movement makes the government an integral part of their marriage by stating that they need to get permission to be married, just to get a name on a death certificate, as in one case. You mean he couldn't just go to his congressman and get help with that? That would be more personal and fulfilling.

The dissent also said, what I have been saying before I read that: "Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer."

175

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

Rattigan350

Wow, I totally agree with Junction Guy. A first time for everything. He is making sense because it is not about religion but in how proper law should be enacted.

You said "Viviane, that is not idiotic at all, that is just what happened! We left a country where the King and the royal family had the power concentrated in their hands, and came here to America, where we the people (majority rules) could decide our destiny as a nation. Power was no longer in the hands of a few, but was placed in the hands of the many."

175

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

Rattigan350

Sir82, I disagree. The constitution said their job is not to define the law, it is the state legislature that defines it.

The dissent got it right, and give them credit, when it said: But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise "neither force nor will but merely judgment." and

"The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage."

"The majority's decision is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution or this Court's precedent. The majority expressly disclaims judicial "caution" and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own "new insight" into the "nature of injustice." Ante, at 11, 23. As a result, the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?"

175

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

Rattigan350

jws said "Don't fool yourself either. The legalization of gay marriage was spreading anyway. And the more it became legal and was accepted, it's my opinion that the remaining states would cave as well. So like it or not, Gay marriage would be widespread and eventually be legal in all states. Probably. Except for the most ignorant states. Or states like Utah with it's huge Mormon presence."

Well, that is fine. That is democracy.

175

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

Rattigan350

No Viviane, "So your complaint is "The U.S. Constitution, legislative, executive and judicial branches worked exactly as designed, but I don't like the results"?"

I say that the constitution is for checks and balances and separation of powers there was none in that case.

I agree fully with the dissent on law principles.

"But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise "neither force nor will but merely judgment."" and

" The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State's decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition."

The dissenters said to leave it to the legislature and the people as it has been. That is what works best if no one is being hurt by that. The petitioners in this case were not hurt by leaving things alone. The Supreme Court works best when it helps the oppressed like in the Barnette case and in the aftermath of Gobitis when their wrong ruling caused more violence against JWs and and the court stated that the proper recourse for dissent was to try to change the school policy democratically. But what of in the mean time? Failure to comply was considered "insubordination" and dealt with by expulsion. Readmission was denied by statute until the student complied. This expulsion, in turn, automatically exposed the child and their parents to criminal prosecution; the expelled child was considered "unlawfully absent" and could be proceeded against as a delinquent, and their parents or guardians could be fined as much as $50 and jailed up to thirty days. That was a penal law that penalizes. So it had to be reversed. Thus West Virginia v Barnette was beneficial.

Since it is split liberal v conservative, the ruling can not be taken seriously. It was scripted. If one person had gone the other way, the ruling would have been different. 5-4 majorities are considered bad rulings.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against gays. I like how they push the envelope like Game of Thrones pushes the envelope as to what is shown on TV. But there are hate crime laws and anti discrimination laws already.

175

Implications of gay marriage ruling

by Rattigan350 in

while many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry god and sinners.

but both are missing the forest through the trees.. the problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times.

five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle.

Rattigan350

While many think that the ruling is good for the gays and their response is: how does that affect your marriage; then on the other side the religious people cry God and sinners. But both are missing the forest through the trees.

The problem with the ruling is that which is discussed here so many times. Five unelected federal officials decided on policy for the whole country, running roughshod over every democratic principle. Like a majority of the governing body decides matters for JWs lives.

Policy is supposed to be based on the community electing a representative based on the majority view and then the representative represents the community in congress, either house, and again, the majority makes the law for the state. Thus the many states can have different laws and regulations.

If laws under the penal code violate ones' rights the courts can strike down those laws, because one can not be punished for an unconstitutional law or procedure. But saying that same sexers can not marry is not a punishment (it is really a blessing as those of use who are married will say), so it is not for the court to step in.

The Court overstepped it's bounds. When women wanted the right to vote, they didn't take it to the court, they got the 19th amendment passed. The 14th amendment was for raising the treatment of blacks to the mainstream as people were saying that the federal gov can not tell the states what to do. So protections were extended. That was done to prevent lynchings, beatings and the many atrocities that kept going on with the law looking the other way. To place gays marrying in the same arena is an insult to the purpose that the 14th amendment came about.

508

If she doesn't comply an orange jumpsuit is in her future

by DJS in

scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.

by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.

updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..

Rattigan350

She is in jail because Kentuckians marry their cousins and are hick hillbillies and drink bourbon. If it were a state with an IQ above 70, this would not have been an issue.

But someone needs to educate her on the Bible. If she knew the Bible, she would know that Biblical marriage is not done by saying I Do, or signing a license, it is done by having sex. - Which is why gay marriage does not happen and is not real.

508

If she doesn't comply an orange jumpsuit is in her future

by DJS in

scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.

by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.

updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..

Rattigan350

One reason that I support her is that gays came down from Ohio to that county just to cause trouble. If they just cared about their marriage, just go to a state that allows SS unions. Afterall, what is the purpose of state's rights if not for states to make their own rules to see how they work. Some states have legalized marijuana contrary to the federal law. The feds are playing hands off of that.

If due process is the excuse that the SCOTUS used, then why did an amendment to the constitution have to be made to give women the right to vote? Couldn't they use due process for equal rights? Whatever happened to the equal rights amendment? I'm in favor of amending the constitution rather than interpreting it in screwball ways.

Back to the states rights issue. One thing that the court said that if a SS marriage is legalized in a state then it has to be recognized in all states. That makes sense. The same with driver's licenses and insurance policies. But recognition is different from issuing licenses.

I agreed with the Court in Lawrence v Texas when they ruled that laws prohibiting homosexual acts between consenting adults are unconstitutional, because the government has no place regulating acts between consenting adults in their home. That is a penal law and they have jurisdiction on that.

508

If she doesn't comply an orange jumpsuit is in her future

by DJS in

scotus: kentucky clerk must issue same-sex marriage licenses.

by ariane de vogue, cnn supreme court reporter.

updated 8:02 pm et, mon august 31, 2015. let's hope this is the final screech from the haters who wrap themselves in the bible - or their egoist political philosophy i doubt it will be, but let's hope..

Rattigan350

What I see is total stupidity, especially from the lawyers. She was stupid for using religion as the reason.

She should have just used the law.

KRS 402.005 Definition of marriage.

As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.

Then tell everyone:

402.990 Penalties

(3) Any authorized person who knowingly solemnizes a marriage prohibited by thischapter shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

According to the law, if she issues same sex marriage licenses, she is guilty of a misdemeaner, until the legislature changes the law.

Some will say "The SCOTUS said same sex couples have the right to marry based on the us constitution". Ok, they said that. But the SCOTUS does not define laws in states. If it is a penal code law, then their ruling would mean that a person can not be punished for violation, no matter what is on the books, but this is not a penal law. SCOTUS ruling nullified

402.020 Other prohibited marriages.

(1)Marriage is prohibited and void: (d)Between members of the same sex;

But that did not change the definition of marriage in the law. It just removed the prohibition of it. She would have been totally right in refusing to issue the licenses based on 402.005 and 402.990. But hey, people don't bother to read the laws including her.

And remember that there is no obligation for the county clerk to issue marriage licenses because if a person has a right to marry, a person does not need to ask permission from the government. Like the Stratton OH case. A person has the right to preach door to door without getting permission from the mayor so that person does not need to give a name or get a permit.

83

What woke you up?

by Israel Ricky Gonzales in

in march of 2014, i was a very active jw, a ministerial servant, gave a public talk, was an attendant for the memorial, and one of 4 cleaning captains for an international convention of 40,000+ attendees.

so what woke me up?

an innocent comment from a co-worker about the candice conti court case rang a bell that could not be unrung.

Rattigan350

To the OP, Israel Ricky Gonzales . Your story sounds so fake, like an ad from an anti-JW. The common ole Child abuse, UN NGO, Russell and Rutherford and then Greber. That sounds so unreal and not common among people.

My awaking is how people follow the GB/FDS/Watchtower that they are drones and it makes people so unkind and unloving. Why would I want to be with people that treat me and others like that.