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.
HAHAHAHA!
The count is probably closer to two-thirds. Some of that is because certain people look at it as a challenge. Most of it is because there are only a few topics that I find worth defending.
One of the big differences between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives prefer face to face confrontations and don’t usually try to hide their plans.
You may still disagree with me, but you’re honest and up front about it.
A question if I may.
If the ruling on same sex marriage had gone your way, would you still be calling to impeach all the justices of SCOTUS?
If you had faith, you wouldn’t need guns or numbers to force your beliefs on others.
People make their own choices. You’ve no authority to make choices for them.
baloney
And what religion were the legislators who passed the laws requiring marriage licenses?
They weren’t Pastifarians.
Those legislators thought by making religion the law of the state (and the law of the land) and taking away choice that they were Doing a Good Thing.
I could say something about a road being paved with good intentions, but I think somebody else already has.
LOL another unwashed and unread progressive she can’t be fired she was ELECTED and she was elected when the Law in Kentucky banned sodomy based marriages
Actually, things were going along swimmingly until someone decided that they Knew Best for the Other Guy.
That predated the liberal “control” of education and popular culture.
The solution is simple. Let people choose just as you would like to choose. And yes, that’s a version of the Golden Rule.
The only hate is coming from the Sodomites and their fellow travelers. She was in fact quite clam and kind. The sodomites could have gone to the next township and gotten their license for their pretend marriage instead they chose to create a scene.
And tell me how does and ELECTED person get fried? Oh just what law did she break because in Kentucky it is still illegal to give a marriage license to two people of the same sex
Sodomites are trying their best to put Christians in a ghetto
The easy answer is that the people do. We’ve done it before.
The hard answer is that we the people keep government out of people’s lives. For example, where in the Constitution does it give the FedGovs or the StateGovs the power to regulate or license marriage?
KYFHO.
Please define “foreigners.”
Member of Congress and the president are elected and there are ways to rid ourselves of them. Not so with the Supreme Court.
Persons who harbor foreign allegiance and espouse foreign values.
Ginsburg, Kagan, and Breyer all fit into that category.
Good answer.
I think that the justices were supposed to balance the popular tyranny that could back Congress and the President. That probably worked better before the 17th Amendment.
Our government was never supposed to work “smoothly.” I distrust anytime that it does.
You mean Kagan is loyal to Monaco?
It seems to me that you’re picking the justices you don’t agree with.
Does Thomas fit that too?
And if I had wheels, I’d be a truck
Not a skateboard?
Yeah, all the gay atheist democrats say that
In Pennsylvania (where I practice), religion had little to do with it. The Commonwealth Court decided that, when a martial dispute hit the courts where there was no license, but one spouse claimed they had a present intent to be married, the courts/judges didn’t have to evaluate each couple’s marriage arrangement for “common law” marriage status anymore and simply decided that as of X date, any common law marriage entered into after that date was void. You either got a license, or you were not married. Period. That means no one is married unless the state says they are. Ever.
Then the legislature said “Heeeeyyyy, that’s our job, not the Court’s” and then they passed legislation codifying that decision.
That was for court/judicial/govt. convenience and ultimately, control. It sure as Hell wasn’t to spread the Gospel.
Well, there goes all of our criminal law out the window.
This is where hypotheticals go, apparently
No, because the issue is a states’ rights matter. States traditionally can decide marriage elements for the purposes of legal enforcement. Sexual orientation does not rise to the level of an immutable trait, so it is not akin to race or gender, and is best described as “an act” or “conduct”. Equal protection does not protect activity.
If I had my way, then each state could pursue same sex marriage if the citizens of said state thought it was a good idea, either through voter referendum or legislature. This would require homosexuals to actually convince people of the rightness of their cause, as opposed to simply forcing it on everyone else. Then if the voters change their mind or want to make modifications, they can do so even if they have to vote out their representatives.
And since marriage is now wholly subjective, and thus lacks any shared meaning anymore, the states could also simply eliminating marriage licensing, institute marriage registration, and then have the parties settle marriage disputes via binding arbitration, and then have that Award upheld by the state. Live or die by your on marriage contract. The state takes an interest only when the best interest of children are a play. Everyone is happy, except militant lefties and homosexuals who want to FORCE societal change and acceptance on people that don’t want thugged.
But homosexuals took this matter to the SCOTUS purposefully to avoid this, so they could enshrine it in the Constitution so as to PREVENT any possible change. And the court reached the decision not on any legal/Constitutional ground, but because Kennedy wanted to accomplish a result he desired, and searched for a rationale to justify it. He failed, but he “won” and we are screwed unless the SCOTUS changes it’s mind, or we pass a Constitutional amendment to it. Good luck on that. All part f the homosexual advocates’ plan.
Or we simply say “piss off, make me”, like this woman did. I can just imagine how much people will support gays when they perp walk dissenters to prison in front of the cameras. Way to go my freaky darlings!
They love causing scenes.
FYI, if you want to be taken seriously, don’t go to a blog full of Christian commenters and secularize the words of their God. If you want to quote Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount, then do it, but don’t try to put words in His mouth, for pity’s sake!
“That’s not lactose! it’s milk!!”
I agree that the marriage mess should have worked it’s way through the states. But I also think that government never should have been in the marriage business to begin with.
I encourage the gay left to push this narrative at the next black lives matter riot
The black church defeated the gayz in California, organizing their congregations with other defenders of traditional marriage to pass Proposition 8 (yes, we vote on civil rights). It pissed off the gayz really bad, that an element of the liberal-left coalition left the plantation just long enough to help the other side on an issue where they needed solidarity to overcome the institutional inertia of the status quo. But they can’t do anything about it because they’re scared of the blacks, even the church going ones. These two groups have unresolved differences. Lets do whatever we can to highlight these contradictions in their platform.
The black church and the gayz have irresolvable differences. The feminists and the muslims have irresolvable issues. The enviromentalists and the unions have irresolvable differences. The students/civil servants and the middle class have irresolvable issues. I say its time for a battle royal.
*grins* Thanks.
Mala in se means bad in and of itself. Mala in se laws protect against measurable harm to life, liberty, and property.
Mala prohibita means bad because it is prohibited. Mala prohibita laws cover licensing, regulation, and the vice laws.
I’ve no problem with mala in se laws. Mala prohibita laws should be, well, prohibited.
It’s true, I am up front about it every time ypu talk about some unworkable fairyland solution to a serious problem. I don’t understand why you don’t seem to see the difference between things as you want them to be, and things as they actually are.
Like it or not, people need a moral underpinning, which means that one has to be defined. And it’s no suprise that our Creator did just that. If only we would just live by a few simple rules, how much happier, healthier and more successful we’d all be, and so there is no problem in codifying those rules, as I see it.
Zoom zoom zoom.
Utah.
In countries where Sodomite are able to have a legal pretend “marriage” only 20% of them actually do. It isn’t about marriage it never was, this is all about forced acceptance of their perversity.
So Salty sees the problem, grabs his tool box, pops the hood and tries to fix it.
Neo stands there in a housecoat and curlers, screetching “I told you not to buy this piece of shit, but did you listen? Nooooooooo…
The Golden Rule applies more than just to Christians.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
You got that wrong.
If I spoke at all, I’d say that you should have been careful who you bought the car from.
I might say something about getting your eyes checked because you are certainly seeing things.
wrong… I’d say that you should have been careful who you bought the car from.
A distinction without a difference, m’boy, as neither expresion will ever fix the problem
The matter at hand is: What do we do now?
The 9th and 10th Amendments. And then the state legislature is beholden to the voter.
It’s only unworkable because some people keep tossing it out.
As long as you don’t insist that I have to abide by your rules, I’ve no problem. It’s when you claim that your choice and the relationship that you may (or may not) have with the Divine controls the behavior of me and my neighbors that I have a problem.
If you want to discuss the rules we can agree on, then we can work together.
I’d never agree that your God was the supreme being. Just as I am sure you’d never agree that my god was.
We can agree that murder or hurting people is bad. We can agree that theft is bad. We can agree that destroying property is bad.
We can agree that licensing doctors is probably good. We may not agree that florists or hairstylists should be licensed.
Is that enough to start? Or do you demand that I prostrate myself before your God and your church?
I wasn’t the one who took the detour, kiddo.
My solution is the same as what it was. Stop blaming government officials and reduce the size and power of government to an absolute minimum.
And maybe less.
Government “solutions” lead to bigger government problems later.
The whole point of contention is not whether the federal government should exist, or whether the actions of its agents can ever be legitimate in the wild eyes of a radical fringe. The vast majority accepts, if not the moral legitimacy or even the necessity of The State, then at least the sheer brute fact of its reality.
You and your confederates are a miniscule minority on these matters. The ship has already sailed, our voyage is under way. So, what next? We determine the tolerable limits of the monopolist’s power in order to minimize the extent and efficiency of “the market for initiatory-force” i.e. the province of The State.
BTW, I call The State a monopolist and then say we need it. I am sooooo trolling you
You did know that prior to the 1920s, most states registered marriages?
You did know that the reason most states started licensing marriage was because of Federal law?
The point of contention isn’t that the Federal government should exist.
It’s if the state has a legitimate interest as you stated.
I say it doesn’t.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Right, cuz islam and hinduism and sikhism and zoroastrianism and buddhism and shintoism and confusionism all embrace something radically different from Christianisty in regards to traditiinal marriage.
You, sir, are reaching.
It seems I didn’t write clearly.
Mixing religion and government is not good. Making a religious rite a legal ceremony is not good. One religion (or one carefully selected group of religions) should not have the power to define a legal ceremony when not everyone is a member of that religion.
And when the legal ceremony is changed without regard to the religion, it was only possible because the religious rules were enshrined in law.
Or even more simply, why do American Christians get to define what is and is not a real marriage?
Can you MFing read?
minimize the extent and efficiency of “the market for initiatory-force” i.e. the province of The State.
What does a monopoly do poorly?
1. Restricts output
2. Raises price
3. Reduces consumer surplus
4. Restricts consumer choice
5. Reduces consumer sovereignty
These are things we want in the market for initiatory force. Initiatory force is a bad like pollution, the by-product of another production process; and like pollution, its consumers are third-parties.
So, I argue that the elimination of The State as initiatory force monopolist would lead to greater supply of initiatory force at a lower price. This kind of efficiency, I can do without.
Talk to me about the efficiencies of scale of The State swamping these effects and I will listen.
No, Kagan is loyal to her primitive foreign tribe. Same for Ginsburg.
Americans should not be so naive about those foreigners.