Re: Kim Davis
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:28 amPolitical Crossfire Forums
Political forum discussions also covering current events, constitutional rights, and more!
https://www.political-crossfire.com/
Kim Davis
https://www.political-crossfire.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5194
Page 2 of 9
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:28 amRe: Kim Davis
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:21 amRe: Kim Davis
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:50 ami don't agree with Obergefell but i do agree with Dylan. outside of constitutional amendment there is nothing to do here. i don't think you'd get 3/4ths of the states to agree to it, even if it is a reassertment of state rights. it would just be painted as bigotry and won't even be attempted
Re: Kim Davis
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:27 amRe: Kim Davis
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:30 amRe: Kim Davis
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:40 amRe: Kim Davis
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:42 amRe: Kim Davis
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 12:33 pmDylan, I didn't quote because when I tried to I saw three layers of quotes. I'm not trying to dodge you, I'm just trying to simplify things.
1) Kentucky has every right to disagree with the ruling. The USSC said in 2013, in the Windsor case, that states define marriage and the feds don't. That's how they overturned DOMA. I agree with you on your reasoning argument...if the reasoning were clear that would be one thing but I don't think it's clear here. They contradicted themselves.
2) They did extend equal protection in 2015 but you saying that ignores my point which is they had no reason to hear the case in the first place.
3) You agree with my main complaint about their rulings but dismiss it why? Because you agree with what they said in this case?
4) I'm new here and I don't know your customs but where I'm from I'd wait to hear Galt speak for himself, I'm not paying attention to your interpretation of what you think he meant. I wait for it to come from the horses mouth.
1) Kentucky has every right to disagree with the ruling. The USSC said in 2013, in the Windsor case, that states define marriage and the feds don't. That's how they overturned DOMA. I agree with you on your reasoning argument...if the reasoning were clear that would be one thing but I don't think it's clear here. They contradicted themselves.
2) They did extend equal protection in 2015 but you saying that ignores my point which is they had no reason to hear the case in the first place.
3) You agree with my main complaint about their rulings but dismiss it why? Because you agree with what they said in this case?
4) I'm new here and I don't know your customs but where I'm from I'd wait to hear Galt speak for himself, I'm not paying attention to your interpretation of what you think he meant. I wait for it to come from the horses mouth.
Re: Kim Davis
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 12:45 pmRe: Kim Davis
Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2015 12:45 pmOh and you should totally listen to my chaneling Galt. I've argued with that madman for a decade now I know his legal opinions better than my own at this point 