Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[jamil]

You must have it bad if I threw you off!

Man, you don't know the half of it. Sometimes clarity is there. But usually I have to fight even the slightest distractions most people don't even notice.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Man, you don't know the half of it. Sometimes clarity is there. But usually I have to fight even the slightest distractions most people don't even notice.

I'm sorry...you were saying?

 

[Shadow8088]

People that support the actions of others towards Mrs. Davis now, are they same ones that revile the various ways they accused religious people of "forcing of religion" on them? If you viewed the later as wrong but agree with or look the other way and don't speak out against it when the former is done, you are a hypocrite.

Something has gone wrong with the program... must recheck the code... I agree with GFGT... that HAS to be something wrong!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Something has gone wrong with the program... must recheck the code... I agree with GFGT... that HAS to be something wrong!

I knew you'd come around....

 

[Arthur Dent]

Words mean what they mean. You, by the meaning of the words you used, indeed said everything about the national scorn she received. And given your response, that is exactly what you intended. And you've made those kinds of points before. It's pretty obvious from those and other remarks, that a snarky America, which mob-shames people into politically correct compliance, is the America you prefer. Okay. Fine. Own it.

I think you have forgotten one of the wonderful things about the United States. You can oppose, say bad things about, shame, and ridicule your elected officials.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Thanks, I get it now, and mostly agree. It's pretty obvious that "tolerance" means acceptance of mob-approved social behavior.



I think I got it now. Too many back references for me to keep track of in my ADD state.

Thinking it over, I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of "mob rules" (a broad paraphrase, I realize). "Mob" implies an unthinking stance toward a situation with no resort to a set of principles - an ethos - to govern behavior. A "mob" goes where it is lead; a society evolves rules because, by-and-large, they work for the majority of that society. A responsible society, in my opinion, considers the ramifications of changes they make to their society before they make them (part of that "evolutionary" process of change), while a "revolutionary" society just wants "change" without thinking of the consequences of such change. We're in the grip of a "revolutionary" change in our society at this point, and have been for about 60 years. The Law of Unintended Consequences seems to be pretty much a Universal Truth; too bad we don't pay more attention to it.

 

[jamil]

I think you have forgotten one of the wonderful things about the United States. You can oppose, say bad things about, shame, and ridicule your elected officials.

Oh, I haven't forgotten anything of the sort. People are free to be *******s if they want. If they want. I never said anything about creating laws to stop all the mob-snark pile-on bull****.

I prefer an America where citizens regard each other more. We've gone further from that instead of closer to that. I'm just asking MRJ, what kind of America does he want, and is he willing to use ridicule and derision to get it. Do we want political correctness enforced by the masses? I don't. I'd rather encourage the people that do, to stop and think about how a civilized society works out social disagreements. Death threats on twitter isn't all that civilized.

Thinking it over, I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of "mob rules" (a broad paraphrase, I realize). "Mob" implies an unthinking stance toward a situation with no resort to a set of principles - an ethos - to govern behavior. A "mob" goes where it is lead; a society evolves rules because, by-and-large, they work for the majority of that society. A responsible society, in my opinion, considers the ramifications of changes they make to their society before they make them (part of that "evolutionary" process of change), while a "revolutionary" society just wants "change" without thinking of the consequences of such change. We're in the grip of a "revolutionary" change in our society at this point, and have been for about 60 years. The Law of Unintended Consequences seems to be pretty much a Universal Truth; too bad we don't pay more attention to it.

Society drives laws more than laws drive society. That's more the kind of thoughtful ethos you're talking about. The ****storm we've seen in these social conflicts isn't that at all. It is every bit a mob. What I'm talking about does indeed involve a changing ethos, but towards something more thoughtless and uncivilized than what you're saying.

I believe Kim Davis is in the wrong on this, and I've explained elsewhere why I believe that. And individuals in a civilized society should be able to voice their little piece of societal ethos without ridiculing her. Just because I don't agree with her doesn't mean I must disagree with all the vitriol I can muster. I don't think she deserves that. She deserves only the consequences that a nation of laws can prescribe.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Oh, I haven't forgotten anything of the sort. People are free to be *******s if they want. If they want. I never said anything about creating laws to stop all the mob-snark pile-on bull****.

I prefer an America where citizens regard each other more. We've gone further from that instead of closer to that. I'm just asking MRJ, what kind of America does he want, and is he willing to use ridicule and derision to get it. Do we want political correctness enforced by the masses? I don't. I'd rather encourage the people that do, to stop and think about how a civilized society works out social disagreements. Death threats on twitter isn't all that civilized.



Society drives laws more than laws drive society. That's more the kind of thoughtful ethos you're talking about. The ****storm we've seen in these social conflicts isn't that at all. It is every bit a mob. What I'm talking about does indeed involve a changing ethos, but towards something more thoughtless and uncivilized than what you're saying.

I believe Kim Davis is in the wrong on this, and I've explained elsewhere why I believe that. And individuals in a civilized society should be able to voice their little piece of societal ethos without ridiculing her. Just because I don't agree with her doesn't mean I must disagree with all the vitriol I can muster. I don't think she deserves that. She deserves only the consequences that a nation of laws can prescribe.

Of course, the point is, as I have seen it explained elsewhere, that she is caught between the fact that a federal judge has struck down a law, and the fact that the Kentucky Legislature has yet to act to legally change their Constitution and state laws to comply. Judges don't MAKE law; they rule on the law. In this case, the Kentucky constitution forbids same-sex marriage and the Governor declined to call the Legislature back into session to address the conflict. Davis may not have the law on her side to refuse to issue such licenses based on her deeply held religious beliefs, but she does have grounds to refuse based on the fact that the law hasn't been changed as it needs to be to conform to the federal judge's ruling.

 

[Libertarian01]

Of course, the point is, as I have seen it explained elsewhere, that she is caught between the fact that a federal judge has struck down a law, and the fact that the Kentucky Legislature has yet to act to legally change their Constitution and state laws to comply. Judges don't MAKE law; they rule on the law. In this case, the Kentucky constitution forbids same-sex marriage and the Governor declined to call the Legislature back into session to address the conflict. Davis may not have the law on her side to refuse to issue such licenses based on her deeply held religious beliefs, but she does have grounds to refuse based on the fact that the law hasn't been changed as it needs to be to conform to the federal judge's ruling.

I don't know if this is correct. I am not arguing, well not entirely anyway, but as I see it once SCOTUS ruled that laws banning same sex marriage are incongruous with the United States Constitution under the equal protection they automatically became unenforceable, null and void. Ergo, the need to change the Kentucky Constitution is merely for decoration as it has no force behind it. Since this is the case, as I see it, Kim Davis has nowhere to hide. She took an oath to "...faithfully execute the duties of my office..." (Link: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=21176). Since one of those duties is issuing marriage licenses AND the law of the land says that gays cannot be banned from receiving such, now one of her duties is to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. What the Kentucky Constitution says that is in conflict with the Supreme Court decision is now irrelevant.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I don't know if this is correct. I am not arguing, well not entirely anyway, but as I see it once SCOTUS ruled that laws banning same sex marriage are incongruous with the United States Constitution under the equal protection they automatically became unenforceable, null and void. Ergo, the need to change the Kentucky Constitution is merely for decoration as it has no force behind it. Since this is the case, as I see it, Kim Davis has nowhere to hide. She took an oath to "...faithfully execute the duties of my office..." (Link: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=21176). Since one of those duties is issuing marriage licenses AND the law of the land says that gays cannot be banned from receiving such, now one of her duties is to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. What the Kentucky Constitution says that is in conflict with the Supreme Court decision is now irrelevant.

Regards,

Doug

I will just note that the Supreme Court ruled that Chicago couldn't ban civilians from owning handguns, but it's still almost impossible to get a permit in Chicago - and no Chicago official has gone to jail yet.

 

[Libertarian01]

I will just note that the Supreme Court ruled that Chicago couldn't ban civilians from owning handguns, but it's still almost impossible to get a permit in Chicago - and no Chicago official has gone to jail yet.

True. However, to challenge this you have to find someone with deep pockets and a set of big brass balls to step up, get arrested, and then go through the tearing down of unconstitutional laws/ordinances. In Kim Davis's case, that was done when Judge Bunning made his ruling.

It is also a difference between one person (ie. Mrs. Davis) and an entire political machine. As the lone, elected clerk that did make her, for right or wrong, an easy target. In Chicago's case they can pass the buck, and this comes very naturally to Chicago (or any major cities) bureaucracy.

Regards,

Doug

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Pope secretly met with Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Pope secretly met with Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis

Hmmm...

 

[Expat]

Pope secretly met with Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis

The Today Show seems pretty obsessed with the possibility this occurred this morning...
Here they were just warming up to to the leftist Pope that they hoped they had.

 

[Birds Away]

The Today Show seems pretty obsessed with the possibility this occurred this morning...
Here they were just warming up to to the leftist Pope that they hoped they had.

Oh, there must be much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth....

 

[Expat]

Oh, there must be much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth....

I get the feeling we may actually see heads explode if this is confirmed. They seemed to be doubting the truthfulness of the meeting as they kept saying "according to Kim Davis", "unconfirmed", etc.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Breaking: liberal atheists back to being upset with Pope for being catholic

 

[indiucky]

Breaking: liberal atheists back to being upset with Pope for being catholic

Thanks...Just sprayed Dr. Pepper thru the nose and onto the key board....Good one...LMAO....

 

[PaulF]

Breaking: liberal atheists back to being upset with Pope for being catholic

Breaking: Real-life liberal Atheists (the kind that actually exist outside of the imaginations of conservative pundits) don't give a flying **** about this, or any other pope.

Kim Davis and the pope are free to meet and discuss whatever they wish...why on Earth would I care?

 

[mrjarrell]

Breaking: liberal atheists back to being upset with Pope for being catholic

Let's see....one anti-gay marriage public employee meets with another anti-gay marriage public figure. Still don't care.