A court clerk in Kentucky want to jail because she would not issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple. Keep in mind that, in 2004, an amendment to the Kentucky state constitution defining marriage as one man and one woman was approved by 75% of the voters. To this fact, our nation’s liberal elite answer: Damn the voters, damn Kentucky and damn Kim Davis for thinking that her religious beliefs should be respected. The liberal elite — in particular, Justice Anthony Kennedy and four of his Supreme Court colleagues — have decided that Christian belief must be forcibly eradicated, and that the voters of Kentucky are not fit to govern themselves. Therefore, Kim Davis is a criminal.
This is what our nation’s liberal elite demands in 2015, because the liberal elite believes in a radical egalitarian ideology in which only those who are deemed “oppressed” have any influence or protection in American society. The law must judge every conflict according to a simple question: “Who is the greater ‘victim of society’ here?” The victims always win, and therefore the only way to “win” is to present yourself as a helpless loser, in order to demand that “society” give you whatever you want as compensation for your oppressed condition. That this kind of “social justice” mentality incentivizes failure and inspires fraudulent claims of victimhood (everything is rape now) is bad enough. Yet it also serves to destroy society’s ability to protect itself against real harms, as evidenced by a recent federal court ruling:
A federal appeals court has ruled that an illegal immigrant and convicted felon can’t be deported back to Mexico because he identifies as a transgender woman, which leaves him vulnerable to torture back in his home country.
Edin Carey Avendano-Hernandez was born male in Mexico, and claims to have been raped by his brothers and suffered other torments. In 2000, he illegally entered the U.S. and took up residence in Fresno, California. Avendano-Hernandez also started taking female hormones and began living openly as a woman in 2005. In 2006, he committed two separate drunk driving offenses, the second of which injured two people and resulted in a felony conviction. After serving a year in jail, he was deported back to Mexico in 2007.
Back in Mexico, Avendano-Hernandez claims to have been subjected to more harassment from family and neighbors and to have been raped by members of the Mexican army. He illegally entered the U.S. again and, after being arrested, petitioned for sanctuary in the U.S. under the U.N. Convention Against Torture (CAT), arguing that deporting him would violate the CAT because he would more likely than not experience torture at the hands of Mexican authorities. . . .
Now, a three-judge panel on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says Avendano-Hernandez must be allowed to stay in the U.S., because he “more likely than not” will be tortured if returned to Mexico.
Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, an Obama appointee, chastised immigration officials for improperly handling Avandano-Hernandez’s gender identity. . . .
The belief that Avendano-Hernandez was raped and tortured in Mexico appears to be based entirely on his own claims, which were deemed to be “credible” by his immigration judge.
Read the whole thing at The Daily Caller. You see the court has decided that this convicted criminal, who otherwise would be ineligible for residency in the United States, now must be granted residency, merely because his/her “gender identity” would make him/her a victim of Mexican society if he/she were to be deported. The United States therefore must accept every foreign transsexual who can make it across the border, because “social justice” requires it.
Christians in Kentucky have zero rights, so Kim Davis goes to jail, while a Mexican criminal pervert has a “Get Out of Jail Free” card.
I get it. I took Filosofy in Skool. 😀
I think you may have misread my reply to Neo as being a reply to you. (And that followed along on the heels of an earlier reply to him.)
These fools can’t correctly participate in rational discourse, so why learn to use words correctly when they can’t use logic correctly?
Heh. I went through a questioning sojourn as an agnostic liberal. They know rhetoric well, and so now do I.
As far as anyone can prove, I know nothing about Grand Daddy Purple. 😀
How well can you know their rhetoric when you didn’t use the f-word or threaten his dog??? : )
You illustrate the intellectual dishonesty of the cucks quite perfectly.
You have been a civilizing influence on me, and I appreciate it.
Just for a sample of “LOLs” that I made… well maybe 1/3 were funny.
Wait. Really? You think that they can’t control their libidos without a wedding ring? Homophobe!!!
No, it was just my insecurity from those weird experiences of the very people that should’ve gotten it the easiest, not getting it at all.
One was LOL, two were scary…
Well, you specifically mentioned the word “professor”, so your problem could be that.
And wouldn’t metamind relate to the supposed zeitgeist, in fact, be directly affected by it? Although I believe that zeitgeist only applies to the hive mind of drone-like sheeple, who must avail themselves of it, on account of being unable or unwilling to think for themselves.
In fact, I could name some names from this very comment thread as examples du jour, but I think that’s unnecessary.
You’re the same guy with a different name
Yeah, “rational” is gay marriage is fascism, and destroys heterosexual marriage.
Yeah, what’s fascist about using the power of the state to stomp on your enemies?
Gay atheist democrats like blue may like it rough like that but the rest of us don’t
Yeah, my sense of humor is at turns whimsical, abstract and dark. Very, very dark.
Now see? You CAN speak rationally after all!
The weirder and more obtuse a thing is, the easier I get it. I don’t know what that says about me, but I’m sure it’s something good, LOL!
Hmm. The zeitgeist, or spirit of the age, is certainly unconscious; but is that always a bad thing? That is essentially our culture, so it is only bad when our culture is bad.
So really, it would be a good thing to make the zeitgeist good, if we could. In a sense, you could say that is the task of a conservative memeticist.
Yes, exactly. That’s why they single out Christians. Do you understand when they have intolerance for intolerance, how that is a blow against freedom?
Do you understand the difference between a civil liberty and a civil right, and the significance of the ACLU favoring the latter over the former?
I see what you’re saying, and you have a point, but it appears that in a fallen world, the zeitgeist is always the lowest common denominator. I can’t really think of an instance where that was not the case. I know the Greek philosophers tried to make it so, but to no avail. God’s prophets have tried many times over the centuries, with *maybe* some sporadic successes (including my very own role model, the Judge, Deborah), but then people soon backslid into what appears to be the median of the typical societal bell curve.
Gee, I wish we were in a small, quiet pub hashing this out over a couple shots of good Scotch. It would be a fun discussion.
EBL: “I think Kim Davis should issue the marriage certificates (since that is the law of the land, even if we disagree with the disgraceful way it was imposed) or resign because she morally opposes doing so …”
Well, no, she shouldn’t do either. “Gay” mirage is not the law of the land. The supreme Court’s (capitalization intentional; check the Constitution) attempt to impose “gay” mirage on the nation is an unConstitutional usurpation (*), and all government officials, and all citizens, have the duty to defend the Constitution.
(*) Not only is redefining the meaning of the term ‘marriage’ outside the remit of the federal courts, but so is “interpreting” the Constitution — nowhere in the Constitution will you ever find that power and authority bestowed on the courts (or on any other division of the federal government).
What you *will* find in the Constitution is that Congress has the explicitly enumerated authority to decree almost every specific issue to be outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts by a mere act of legislation.
Agreed on all points, and I am once again reminded to re-read my namesake. He really is my model.
Of course, “Christ-killers” just means every human being who is in rebellion against Christ … which number I suspect includes you.
I wasn’t sure that you knew of THE Daniel Freeman. : )
In the context of the Supreme Court, the term “Christ-killers” refers to Ginsburg, Kagan, and Breyer – the foreigners who espouse a hostile set of values.
We don’t disagree on everything.
There are reasons I prefer dealing with conservatives rather than liberals.
The first irony is that you are talking about the state’s “legitimate interests” in a thread where people are defending the lady’s right to protest and stand up for what she believes.
The second irony is that the only reason why you accept the “mainstream” definition of marriage is because it happens to align with your religion.
If it were another religion “defining marriage” you would be screaming about religious discrimination.
The third (and perhaps the most delicious) irony is that most conservative Christians don’t realize that by enshrining part of their beliefs in law, they’ve surrendered the control, definition, and morality of marriage to politicos and judges.
There’s no way to rescind that without getting government permanently out of the marriage license business.
Religion can’t be allowed the coercive power of government and government can’t be allowed the moral justification of religion.
The Supreme Court has overturned the Kentucky law, which they have the authority to do, and have final say. Whether you call it the “law of the land”, or “fiat law”, the effect is the same, and Kim Davis can either resign, or do her job. What she can’t do is continue to obstruct the law, and keep her job.
Do you know where the power of “judicial review” came from? It was declared in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision — by the Supreme Court.
That’s right: the Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court the Supreme Court’s despotic power.
As opposed to the despotic power of a Congress and/or an Executive beyond review?
Right, or better yet, just leave a Civil Rights issue up to the mob whose decision in this case would be on the grounds of “those people are icky”. If the Supreme Court has no power in this case, like so many people here seem to be arguing, and hair splitting over what constitutes “the law of the land”, or “fiat law”, then why bother appealing to the court at all?
If “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please (Living Constitution). It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law… — Thomas Jefferson
I’m sure you find a myriad of ways to rationalize it when your enemies are the ones being stomped, correct?
And here, after all the intellectualizing, we come to what the real issue is for you: “ewww, icky”!
FYI: I’m not a democrat, an atheist, or a homosexual. Of course in the simple minds of every tradcon, if you defend gay marriage you must be gay. Rough ain’t too bad, though, as long as you’re the one giving, and not receiving.
Hmm.
I’m pretty sure I wrote in support of a Supreme Court that could review the Congress, the President, and the laws.
Ms. Davis is the “state”, and she was using her power to discriminate, and punish, even after she’d no more legal authority to do so.
Who reviews the SCOTUS when they issue an unconstitutional decision? Why would the Court bother to ensure they are “correct” when no one has review over them?
Who gave the govt. the power to license marriage, ie to make it criminal to be married without a govt. permit, like practicing law or medicine without a license?
If govt has to honor a marriage without discrimination, then why can’t each of us have our own personal definition of marriage that the govt has to enforce, since any govt determined element of marriage discriminates by its very nature?
So, Freedom is really just being able to discriminate against people who show you no ill will? Gotcha! And to say they, “single out Christians”, is just a slight over dramatization, don’t you think? Ms. Davis is not a priest, or minister, and the clerks office is not a church. She can either resign, “violate her conscience”(bullshit. she’s just a bigot with an axe to grind)based on a cherry picked verse in the OT, or let someone else do that part of the job for her. Maybe school teachers in publicly funded schools, loaded with children of all denominations should refuse to teach Darwinian Evolution because it violates their beliefs? How about quantum mechanics? The theorists are all atheists. This can go on, and on.
Logic in many cases seems to be just another synonym for savagery.
Not surrendered, but stolen.
Back to the old relativism, I see.
Exactly. NONE if us can have an opinion on the matter because 5 dusty old twats decided otherwise, and tortured logic and law to do it. To enforce something that’s supposedly “popular”.
The SCOTUS is who deserves impeachment, 10 times over. But Congress is sans balls so its up to low level civil servants (and the rest of us) to tell them to get bent.
Or she can defy an unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, “law”, which is what I, or any decent, moral person would do. We see which side of that line you and many of your fellow sodomites fall on (not even all homosexuals support it, that’s how ridiculous it is).
And while you are standing around having a case if the vapors over one little ol’ clerk in an obscure county in Kentucky, Barry the Muslim imposes all sorts of illegal laws, by his own admission and by Eric Holder’s admission, supported by braying progressive jackasses who give not a rip about Constitutional separation of powers. And you say nothing whatsoever about the total destruction of the country, but get your panties in a twist because a few queers were very, very slightly inconvenienced in their futile attempt to punish and silence Christians.
Barry is a communist. He has czars – there’s a broad hint for you – and he and members of his administration defy the rule of law all the time. On a daily basis. Where are you then, hmm?
“Progressives” took that name specifically because they know how the word “communist” sounds. Go read the history of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. This is the future of America. And the world. Might I remind you that in Nazi Germany, if not also in the USSR, the butch queers killed the femme queers. This is the fate that awaits you, but you are too dumb to speak out against IMPORTANT things while you still can, and while there is maybe – just maybe – a chance to derail these things, at leadt for the time being.
But oh no, not you. You have no sense of priority. You do the bidding of your commie masters like a good little slave. You are completely de-balled. You should use the profile name “Eunuch”, not “Blue”.
Come now, don’t sell yourself short. Haven’t you noticed that 99.9% of what you write here is disputed by other commenters? Although I can understand dealing with conservatives rather than liberals, because to the best of my knowledge, no one here has threatened your life, tried to get you fired, or doxxed you?
Actually, things were going along swimmingly for quite some time until progressive communists started infiltrating things like education and popular culture.
If conservatives were to round up all the progressive traitors and treat them the way the law demands, we could return to those days.