Posts by Rattigan350

46

Another Kim Davis inspired self-invented "gay issue"

by Simon in

what is it about some of these self proclaimed "christians" who go seeking persecution when it don't exist?.

we've had a case locally in calgary where the initial reports sounded like the person had a legitimate claim: a bus driver didn't want to drive the bus in a gay pride parade and said he'd resign if they made him and that the local transit company was threatening him to force him to do it.. except it was all invented ... by him !.

they already proactively told him that there was no danger that he would be asked to drive that bus in the parade (i.e.

Rattigan350

Grreat Teacher, what prevents the courts from making bad decisions and over reaching as they did here? They defined state law. The checks and balances would be for the legislature to rewrite the law or a constitutional amendment to be made.

You mean it with down in a predictable way. Split down party lines. With Kennedy being the swing vote or rather the most powerful person in the country.

Even Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision.

The point is that the cases that the Court hears will always consist, in large part, of issues that are difficult not in the abstract but in light of the Court's particular composition. In the modern era, a significant number of 5-4 decisions is likely -- at least if the justices are not working hard to suppress internal dissent (as they did before the 1940s), and if lower courts are not systematically ignoring the Court's thinking.

It follows that any Supreme Court will probably seem "evenly divided" in a significant number of important cases. In a hierarchical legal system, the Court will end up hearing disputes that are likely to split its current members -- even if their ideology changes radically over time.

46

Another Kim Davis inspired self-invented "gay issue"

by Simon in

what is it about some of these self proclaimed "christians" who go seeking persecution when it don't exist?.

we've had a case locally in calgary where the initial reports sounded like the person had a legitimate claim: a bus driver didn't want to drive the bus in a gay pride parade and said he'd resign if they made him and that the local transit company was threatening him to force him to do it.. except it was all invented ... by him !.

they already proactively told him that there was no danger that he would be asked to drive that bus in the parade (i.e.

Rattigan350

Really village idiot?

The more I read, the more I learn. My argument has been that if the 14th amendment gives rights to SS marriage, then why didn't it give women the right to vote. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. They said the 14th amendment does not give them that right. The Nineteenth Amendment, which became a part of the Constitution in 1920, effectively overruled Minor v. Happersett by prohibiting discrimination in voting rights based on sex. That is female pride, they worked long and hard for that. The states were divided, they lost a unanimous supreme court case but in the end got the constitutional amendment. Thus case closed. In the current case, they went to a known liberal majority and got the predicted result and the dissent is more than the majority opinion. If I were gay, I would not be proud of that. A hollow victory.

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

Viviane said "So far, the dissent is based on either an utterly faulty understanding and willful ignorance of the history of marriage or upon a book that condones murder, slavery, misogyny, rape, genocide and racism that endorsed and commanded many different types of m

Why should I have anything BUT disdain for those opinions?"

No, the dissent is on the fact that "The substance of the decree is not of immense personal importance to me [or me either]. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court."

Exactly what I stated. And Alito said "Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today's decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority's claim of power portends." Wow!!!!

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

Cappytan: "

I'm of the opinion that the government should have absolutely nothing to say about marriage between consenting adults at all. its none of their damn business"

I agree. But to those who said the that it is involved to insure their rights. It is the government that takes rights away,not protects them.

Marriage is like pioneering. Back when the hour requirement changed from 90 to 70 I asked many Witnesses, why pioneer, if you have 70 hours to devote to the ministry, why not just get 70 hours in without filling out a form and asking permission of the elders since there was no pioneer discount, other than going to pioneer school. Many answered that they need the outside commitment. It is the same with marriage. If you are committed to someone, just make your own commitment and work things out, a license is a crutch. By having a marriage license to fall back on, people think that they have to stay together because of the license because getting a divorce is too difficult.

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: "A "dissenting opinion" is always welcomed here. Ignorance and inaccurate facts that those opinions are based upon are not."

I quoted and agreed with the dissenters on the Supreme court. Thus I was not ignorant or inaccurate. In Survivor when a person is a swing vote, that person is considered the most powerful person in the game. In this case, perhaps, Stephen Breyer was the most powerful person in the nation as he could have been the swing vote. Kennedy wrote that mess. We know that the one who was drunk at the state of the union, Ginsberg was always a liberal. Kagan, Soto-mayer they are just followers who joined to get a favor later, or they owed a favor.

And people say it was a good ruling???

46

Another Kim Davis inspired self-invented "gay issue"

by Simon in

what is it about some of these self proclaimed "christians" who go seeking persecution when it don't exist?.

we've had a case locally in calgary where the initial reports sounded like the person had a legitimate claim: a bus driver didn't want to drive the bus in a gay pride parade and said he'd resign if they made him and that the local transit company was threatening him to force him to do it.. except it was all invented ... by him !.

they already proactively told him that there was no danger that he would be asked to drive that bus in the parade (i.e.

Rattigan350

I would like to know what gay pride is. What do gay have to be proud of?

No originally so they steal words like 'gay' and marriage'.

They can't think their way out of their problems.

Rather than go to their congressmen to solve their problems, the ones in Obergefell, went to unelected judges through a federal case. It seems that doing things in a personal way is something out of their nature.

What do they have to be proud of?

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

I am at Scalia's part of the dissent. and he said "I write separately to call attention to this Court's threat to American democracy."

Exactly what I said.

"The substance of today's decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance."

This is the first time that I agree with Scalia.

" It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court."

That is exactly what I said even before I read that. Great minds...

"This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."

"Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to.1 Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work"

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

any

DJS you said:

"JG and Rat,

Your whining is tedious and unflattering. You lost. Get over it. You are on the wrong side of history on this topic - not to mention that your kind,"

My whining? I posted an analysis and you call that whining and tedious? and I did not lose, America did. I fully support the reasoning of the dissent. And anytime the dissent is longer than the majority opinion, then there must be something wrong. As I said, the ruling is not to be taken seriously.

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."