|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Omega Nox
Consolidated Dust
104
   |
Posted - 2015.06.26 23:07:00 -
[1] - Quote
demens grimwulff wrote:REDBACK96USMC wrote:Well Technically it isnt legal yet, but the legal precedent has been set for States to do so if they please. In the end it is still up to the States to decide.
I assume States like Texas and such will still not recognize it internally since they don't give a crap about federal funding. Not true: ruling states that the 14th amendment is extended to cover gay marriage, overriding state opinions on the matter. Texas' Attorney General says to not issue, but he has no legal basis for the claim and it will be forced in court.
lol, 14th Amendment it only took 5 lawyers 160+ years to see what none had seen before.
The Supreme court is the greatest threat to our democracy today-320 million people being told what is the law by 5 liberal New York elitists-and none of them is a real-American.
Mordu's walking quafe mascot.
|
Omega Nox
Consolidated Dust
104
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 23:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
demens grimwulff wrote:REDBACK96USMC wrote:
I think you should read the State Actor Doctrine and rethink that.
State action doctrine is the American legal concept that the protections of the Constitution GÇö such as the Fourteenth and First Amendments GÇö only apply with any real strength to the coercive power of the state against the individual, rather than the coercive power of the individual against the individual. From a legal website... your interpretation is wrong. 14th amendment is upheld, states are required to marry. Sorry.
Where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned? It is not and therefore up to the individual states to regulate.
Using the 14th Amendment is laughable and shows a level of legal incompetence that is impeachable.
Mordu's walking quafe mascot.
|
Omega Nox
Consolidated Dust
104
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 00:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
REDBACK96USMC wrote:Well Technically it isnt legal yet, but the legal precedent has been set for States to do so if they please. In the end it is still up to the States to decide.
I assume States like Texas and such will still not recognize it internally since they don't give a crap about federal funding.
GOD BLESS the Republic of Texas!
Mordu's walking quafe mascot.
|
Omega Nox
Consolidated Dust
104
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 00:22:00 -
[4] - Quote
Vrain Matari wrote:Daddrobit wrote:Lightning35 Delta514 wrote:Panthrax Oblivion wrote:A sad dark day for my country A very sad day. A country that was once formed on principles of the bible (even tho they didn't really follow it) is increasing the distance more and more each day. BUT THATS NONE OF MY BUSINESS. What the ever loving ****? The Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11: "The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." Written at the end of George Washington's second term, and signed during John Adams. Congratulations to all those finally gaining the equal right to legally love another human being! Yeah, but those boys said it themselves: they were likely to be the best government that country would ever have. GÇ£If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.GÇ¥ ~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789
Ya'll do realize that the Christian Churches will just not comply. Yes they will lose their tax exempt status, but in so doing will become the most powerful political entities in US history. They will, eclipse the unions in numbers, message and dollars.
Your 5 New York libtards, dressed in black robes, should never have taken the case-they had no legal standing in the first place.
O'bama should never attacked Bill Clinton's DOMA statute!
good luck dethocrats!
Mordu's walking quafe mascot.
|
Omega Nox
Consolidated Dust
104
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 01:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
Dreis ShadowWeaver wrote:Can someone explain to me the difference between a marriage and a civil union?
In a civil union you have the same legal protections that marriage conveys, at the employee, State level
In marriage you can create life.
Mordu's walking quafe mascot.
|
Omega Nox
Consolidated Dust
104
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 01:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
Dreis ShadowWeaver wrote:Dzago Sevatarion wrote:Dreis ShadowWeaver wrote:Can someone explain to me the difference between a marriage and a civil union? Nomenclature. So what will change for same-sex couple's in the US following this ruling? Also, is marriage a necessarily religious ceremony, or can you be married in a non-religious way?
The problem is not marriage, the problem is the Federal government and the Supreme court creating law where it has no jurisdiction.
Our Constitution is written so that it expressly states what it has legal jurisdiction over. If the matter is not expressly described then the individual states have jurisdiction and the residents of that states vote on legislation.
The US is a Federal Republic and not a Democracy.
Mordu's walking quafe mascot.
|
Omega Nox
Consolidated Dust
104
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 01:36:00 -
[7] - Quote
postapo wastelander wrote:Sergeant Sazu wrote:PLAYSTTION wrote:homosexuality is a sin Ah, yes. I remember that line. "Man shall not lie with man as he does a women. It is an abomination." Notice how it doesn't explain why. No suporting argument, no reasoning whatsoever. Kinda sounds like, I dunno, someone's opinion. Just maybe. And what about splitted hoof, do every that really big christians really not eat that. Do ALL christians of US (and any other country) not eat pigs and any other of same kind hows bible told. Fc\_/k you fecking fanatics. BACON POWA
Bible told not you said.
Mordu's walking quafe mascot.
|
Omega Nox
Consolidated Dust
104
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 01:48:00 -
[8] - Quote
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:Void Echo wrote:demens grimwulff wrote:PLAYSTTION wrote:Ok here we go. I'm young an my bible knowledge is pretty small but I will give you context and explain the ones I understand. When you get older, see if your bigoted opinions remain. As someone who has suffered threats of violence, failed college classes, had people threaten to pull work from the company I work for, and watched friends commit suicide from their own harrasement, solely because of a sexual preference one is born with, your opinion in this thread reflects the lack of maturity and experience that you admit to not having. Get out of the surbabanite bubble and see the world. You will change. Correction, your not born with any sexual instinct, straight or otherwise, I wasn't born thinking about getting some p***y or a**, your born with the Natural instinct to survive only. The environment and areas your surrounded by affect your development. Actually, recent evidence states otherwise. http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/science-behind-more-meaningful-understanding-sexual-orientation
Respectfuly, your using the "epigenetics hypothesis" helps to prove not disprove his statement.
Mordu's walking quafe mascot.
|
Omega Nox
Consolidated Dust
104
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 02:10:00 -
[9] - Quote
Nocturnal Soul wrote:Omega Nox wrote:demens grimwulff wrote:REDBACK96USMC wrote:
I think you should read the State Actor Doctrine and rethink that.
State action doctrine is the American legal concept that the protections of the Constitution GÇö such as the Fourteenth and First Amendments GÇö only apply with any real strength to the coercive power of the state against the individual, rather than the coercive power of the individual against the individual. From a legal website... your interpretation is wrong. 14th amendment is upheld, states are required to marry. Sorry. Where in the Constitution is marriage mentioned? It is not and therefore up to the individual states to regulate. Using the 14th Amendment is laughable and shows a level of legal incompetence that is impeachable. The power of marriage is given to the state, that you are right. But when the state makes a law that infringes on the rights of the people given to them in the Constitution it becomes a federal problem.
The Constitution says nothing of marriage, and your rights come from the Bill of Rights which also does not mention marriage.
Marriage was and always covered by Common Law, not Statutory nor Constitutional.
It should be noted that Common Law, is older than history itself.
Now we have 5 liberal elitist, all from New York, pulling "rights" out of thin air, and telling 380 million citizens what the law is.
Am I the only person here that sees the tyrany in this?
The citizens are the boss in the US not some unelected harvard grad wearing a black robe!
Mordu's walking quafe mascot.
|
Omega Nox
Consolidated Dust
104
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 02:31:00 -
[10] - Quote
postapo wastelander wrote:Omega Nox wrote:postapo wastelander wrote:Sergeant Sazu wrote:PLAYSTTION wrote:homosexuality is a sin Ah, yes. I remember that line. "Man shall not lie with man as he does a women. It is an abomination." Notice how it doesn't explain why. No suporting argument, no reasoning whatsoever. Kinda sounds like, I dunno, someone's opinion. Just maybe. And what about splitted hoof, do every that really big christians really not eat that. Do ALL christians of US (and any other country) not eat pigs and any other of same kind hows bible told. Fc\_/k you fecking fanatics. BACON POWA Bible told not you said. Really?! Boyko i can eat every bibleholic for breakfast and you should eat this. Sorry for stomp your fanatic dreams XD ergo You are christian and eater of pig meatm you are lier and you will go to hell for it..enjoy boyo XD ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY MONOLITH!!
Really? actually yes, and I know because I can read!
buttercup, please don't be hatin this pig eatin son'o god!
pig is an essential part of every church going Americans breakfast....ummm bacon Merica!
as for your documented ignorance as to diet I refer you back to the B-I-B-L-E, because you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
ok buttercup!
Mordu's walking quafe mascot.
|
|
|
Omega Nox
Consolidated Dust
104
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 21:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
Daddrobit wrote:PLAYSTTION wrote:
The Old testament says no, but Jesus comes and changes the law in the new testament.
Nope, everything in the old testament still stands as firmly as the day it was scribbled down. Matthew 5:17-18 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no ways pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Well if you are correct, let the stoning begin!
fortunately for you! you are absolutely ignorant of the law, and what it was in the beginning.
wrong, wrong, wrong!
Mordu's walking quafe mascot.
|
|
|
| |
|