[WideRight05]

This was expected given how federal judge john heyburn struck down the part of the amendment banning the recognition of out of state marriages, but now he has struck down the full law. There is a hold on the ruling, however, until it is appealed at a higher court.

75% of people in Kentucky voted for the amendment.

[TheRealThing]

Here's what the bozo you mentioned wrote;

"In America, even sincere and long-hold religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted," U.S. District court Judge John G. Heyburn II wrote in the ruling, which concluded that the state's ban violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause."

So, going by this logic, if the results of some particular elections don't suit them, and to facilitate the tenets of social justice as they see fit, liberal judges can disallow the very elective process on which this nation is built. And, if we're going to broadly define such things as equal protection, please explain to me why bank robbers would not be covered under the equal protection clause? Matter of fact, how can we prosecute any kind of immoral act? Do not these folks have the same rights the rest of us have, and therefore, are they not being discriminated against? After all, we are guaranteed the right to pursue happiness and obviously acts of murder, rape, robbery, assault, drug and alcohol abuse, tax evasion, human trafficking, prostitution and you name it makes some folks happy, right?

There is no way things can get any more ridiculous, we have to vote these mentally deranged liberals out of office, if America is to survive.

[TheRealVille]

Here's what the bozo you mentioned wrote;

"In America, even sincere and long-hold religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted," U.S. District court Judge John G. Heyburn II wrote in the ruling, which concluded that the state's ban violated the U.S. Constitution's Equal Protection Clause."

So, going by this logic, if the results of some particular elections don't suit them, and to facilitate the tenets of social justice as they see fit, liberal judges can disallow the very elective process on which this nation is built. And, if we're going to broadly define such things as equal protection, please explain to me why bank robbers would not be covered under the equal protection clause? Matter of fact, how can we prosecute any kind of immoral act? Do not these folks have the same rights the rest of us have, and therefore, are they not being discriminated against? After all, we are guaranteed the right to pursue happiness and obviously acts of murder, rape, robbery, assault, drug and alcohol abuse, tax evasion, human trafficking, prostitution and you name it makes some folks happy, right?

There is no way things can get any more ridiculous, we have to vote these mentally deranged liberals out of office, if America is to survive.

Not if said elections go against the Constitution. This is no different than if Ky held an election to keep African Americans from voting. It would be unConstitutional and null and void, if it passed. You can have your religion, and your perceived morality, as long as it doesn't try to stifle other American citizen's rights. All the other acts you name above go against other people's happiness, and harms them. Gay marriage does not affect you one iota. If you are allowed to marry the one you love, they can also. Simple.

[TheRealThing]

Not if said elections go against the Constitution. This is no different than if Ky held an election to keep African Americans from voting. It would be unConstitutional and null and void, if it passed. You can have your religion, and your perceived morality, as long as it doesn't try to stifle other American citizen's rights. All the other acts you name above go against other people's happiness, and harms them. Gay marriage does not affect you one iota. If you are allowed to marry the one you love, they can also. Simple.

Struggling to come up with a fresh line of rationale to get something started RV? Sexual depravity is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution and therefore, the time and money being spent to litigate the matter is what is unconstitutional. On the contrary, it is an act of self destruction. Not to mention that man's attempts to circumvent Scripture in the US court system clearly represent the embodiment of rebellion and a jurisdiction overlap against God's authority over His created universe. Anybody who says the framers of the Constitution ever envisioned a United States where judges and even the Supreme Court would spend the lion's share of their time ruling on things like men marrying other men is delusional. Or as you so candidly put it, simple.

Your opinion on the matter of legalizing homosexuality is not even your own. All talking points I have heard over and over from the left. I stand against the notion of state sponsored legalization of homosexuality and vote accordingly. Further, God's Word clearly states that it is wrong and that He will judge both those who do it and those who support it. You believe the DNC. I believe the Living God. I'm no better than you or the homosexual however, like God said of Abraham who "believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness." It isn't who you are or what you do particularly. It is what or in this case Who, you believe.

[RunItUpTheGut]

The majority should decide. Gay marriage should be a state by state issue.
If you live in a state that votes for, fine, if you don't, move or change your orientation.

It should really be that simple.

[TheRealVille]

^ States, or majority rule, don't have the right to vote on citizens rights.

[TheRealVille]

Struggling to come up with a fresh line of rationale to get something started RV? Sexual depravity is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution and therefore, the time and money being spent to litigate the matter is what is unconstitutional. On the contrary, it is an act of self destruction. Not to mention that man's attempts to circumvent Scripture in the US court system clearly represent the embodiment of rebellion and a jurisdiction overlap against God's authority over His created universe. Anybody who says the framers of the Constitution ever envisioned a United States where judges and even the Supreme Court would spend the lion's share of their time ruling on things like men marrying other men is delusional. Or as you so candidly put it, simple.

Your opinion on the matter of legalizing homosexuality is not even your own. All talking points I have heard over and over from the left. I stand against the notion of state sponsored legalization of homosexuality and vote accordingly. Further, God's Word clearly states that it is wrong and that He will judge both those who do it and those who support it. You believe the DNC. I believe the Living God. I'm no better than you or the homosexual however, like God said of Abraham who "believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness." It isn't who you are or what you do particularly. It is what or in this case Who, you believe.

In America, your "god" has no rights under the Constitution. But, American citizens have equal rights under said Constitution. Further, you have no right under the Constitution to make "moral" decisions for other Americans. Again, simple.

[WideRight05]

[Image: http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/up...01-334.jpg]

[tvtimeout]

I will just stick with the equal protection clause in the Constitution and yes it is simple, and yes it is the same logic I am sure that you have heard time and time again. That is because it is simple and it is logical.

[TheRealVille]

^ States, or majority rule, don't have the right to vote on citizens rights.

Just like states don't have the right to stop African Americans from voting. We could agree that there are more than a couple of southern states that would love nothing more than to take away African American voting rights, yet the Constitution won't allow it. Same thing here, except this issue is many years behind the African American voting issue.

[TheRealThing]

Just like states don't have the right to stop African Americans from voting. We could agree that there are more than a couple of southern states that would love nothing more than to take away African American voting rights, yet the Constitution won't allow it. Same thing here, except this issue is many years behind the African American voting issue.

LOL, quoting yourself now?

[TheRealThing]

I will just stick with the equal protection clause in the Constitution and yes it is simple, and yes it is the same logic I am sure that you have heard time and time again. That is because it is simple and it is logical.

Once again we see the will of the majority being tossed over by judges and legislators who cannot grasp the framer's idea of self governance. They put their thumb on the scale to create an imbalance so the minority can gain a victory, an advantage they do not deserve. So, it's out with the long cherished doctrine of the "common good" in favor of what a minority thinks is logical? The concept of equal protection is therefore trumped by faddish rationalizations of the few, which they see as being perfectly logical. Laughable.

[TheRealThing]

In America, your "god" has no rights under the Constitution. But, American citizens have equal rights under said Constitution. Further, you have no right under the Constitution to make "moral" decisions for other Americans. Again, simple.

No. Only at the DNC, in the minds of Democrat party power brokers, and men like you, does God have no rights. In fact, God will judge all men and that includes Democrats with a chip on their shoulder.

I give credit where credit is due, the lawless liberal faction finally came up with a way to challenge God's moral authority in a court of law under the sham of denying men the right to be happy homosexuals. :please: Nearly as creative as Leo Piffer's argument to redefine the concept of the Separation of Church and State before the SCOTUS back in 1947.

Nobody ever suggested that men could not be gay and carry on any way their depravity directs them in their private lives. The problem is embodied within the absurdity of legalizing sexually deviant behavior in the opinion of the court. As I have said before, in an action like DADT, which is solely intended to validate the lifestyle of the homosexual. You might not ever get the Christian to turn his back on Godly precepts, but you can certainly prosecute him in the Orwellian near future, right? I understand that you think you are ready to help lead the rebellion against the authority of God in men's lives.

Again, it boils down to Who one chooses to believe. You, or our Creator.

[TheRealVille]

No. Only at the DNC, in the minds of Democrat party power brokers, and men like you, does God have no rights. In fact, God will judge all men and that includes Democrats with a chip on their shoulder.

I give credit where credit is due, the lawless liberal faction finally came up with a way to challenge God's moral authority in a court of law under the sham of denying men the right to be happy homosexuals. :please: Nearly as creative as Leo Piffer's argument to redefine the concept of the Separation of Church and State before the SCOTUS back in 1947.

Nobody ever suggested that men could not be gay and carry on any way their depravity directs them in their private lives. The problem is embodied within the absurdity of legalizing sexually deviant behavior in the opinion of the court. As I have said before, in an action like DADT, which is solely intended to validate the lifestyle of the homosexual. You might not ever get the Christian to turn his back on Godly precepts, but you can certainly prosecute him in the Orwellian near future, right? I understand that you think you are ready to help lead the rebellion against the authority of God in men's lives.

Again, it boils down to Who one chooses to believe. You, or our Creator.

If, under US law, you are granted a marriage license, they should be also. The christian religion doesn't trump citizen rights in this country. Argue for your god all you want, he has no legal authority under US law.

[TheRealVille]

Once again we see the will of the majority being tossed over by judges and legislators who cannot grasp the framer's idea of self governance. They put their thumb on the scale to create an imbalance so the minority can gain a victory, an advantage they do not deserve. So, it's out with the long cherished doctrine of the "common good" in favor of what a minority thinks is logical? The concept of equal protection is therefore trumped by faddish rationalizations of the few, which they see as being perfectly logical. Laughable.

Do you think the states, or majority should have the right to do away with black people's right to vote?

[TheRealThing]

Do you think the states, or majority should have the right to do away with black people's right to vote?

Why keep coming back at the conversation with the liberal go to issue, racial inequality? It is a thoroughly adjudicated issue though, revisited ad nauseum, and it is completely irrelevant no matter how thin you manage to stretch credibility. Voting is a right. Yours is still just an argument (albeit unnatural, ludacris and unsupported in the annals of history ) trying to survive. Maybe the end of 2014 will see the madness in remission.

[TheRealThing]

If, under US law, you are granted a marriage license, they should be also. The christian religion doesn't trump citizen rights in this country. Argue for your god all you want, he has no legal authority under US law.

Thanks I will and FTR He is The God.

[TheRealVille]

Why keep coming back at the conversation with the liberal go to issue, racial inequality? It is a thoroughly adjudicated issue though, revisited ad nauseum, and it is completely irrelevant no matter how thin you manage to stretch credibility. Voting is a right. Yours is still just an argument (albeit unnatural, ludacris and unsupported in the annals of history ) trying to survive. Maybe the end of 2014 will see the madness in remission.

Marriage is a right. My argument has been surviving since the 1800's. Do you think states, and majority rules can keeps blacks and whites from marrying?

http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-cour...tal-right/

[TheRealThing]

Marriage is a right.

http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-cour...tal-right/

Want to show that to me in the founding documents? Marriage is an institution set up by God himself.

[TheRealVille]

Thanks I will and FTR He is The God.

FTR, he's a fairy tale from a book.

[TheRealVille]

Want to show that to me in the founding documents? Marriage is an institution set up by God himself.

In the amendments, under equal protection, as defined by the courts that define the law. When the states started handing out marriage licenses, it became a right for all, under equal protection, and SCOTUS agrees with me. Your god doesn't make the rules in the US.

[Do-double-gg]

Not if said elections go against the Constitution. This is no different than if Ky held an election to keep African Americans from voting. It would be unConstitutional and null and void, if it passed. You can have your religion, and your perceived morality, as long as it doesn't try to stifle other American citizen's rights. All the other acts you name above go against other people's happiness, and harms them. Gay marriage does not affect you one iota. If you are allowed to marry the one you love, they can also. Simple.

My problem with this is that African American is a race and being Homosexual is a choice. Under your theory if people want to have sex with animals then they should be protected by the constitution.

[TheRealVille]

My problem with this is that African American is a race and being Homosexual is a choice. Under your theory if people want to have sex with animals then they should be protected by the constitution.

You got proof of that being a choice? I say they are born that way. Scientists say they are born that way. When did you choose to be straight? Under KY law, sex with animals is legal. For a smart conversation, gays want to be together, animals can't give consent. FTR, rights for race and choice doesn't matter. If one chooses to be gay, or a black man belongs to a race, are their rights different?

[Do-double-gg]

You got proof of that? I say they are born that way. When did you choose to be straight? Under KY law, sex with animals is legal.

I never chose to be straight because I did what is natural. That is why men have a penis and women have a vagina. That is why the only way to populate the earth is with a mans sperm and a womans egg. Homosexuality is not nor will it ever be natural or normal no matter how you twist it.

[TheRealVille]

I never chose to be straight because I did what is natural. That is why men have a penis and women have a vagina. That is why the only way to populate the earth is with a mans sperm and a womans egg. Homosexuality is not nor will it ever be natural or normal no matter how you twist it.

Is the earth not populating enough? Could a gene abnormality be what causes homosexuality? Does it, not being a natural act in your eyes, negate an American citizen's rights?

[Do-double-gg]

You got proof of that being a choice? I say they are born that way. Scientists say they are born that way. When did you choose to be straight? Under KY law, sex with animals is legal. For a smart conversation, gays want to be together, animals can't give consent. FTR, rights for race and choice doesn't matter. If one chooses to be gay, or a black man belongs to a race, are their rights different?

Do you just go with and believe everything that scientists and politicians say?

[TheRealVille]

Do you just go with and believe everything that scientists and politicians say?

Do you just go and say that some Americans are not protected under the constitution? Again, is the earth not populating enough to keep up? Again, could a gene abnormality be what causes homosexuality? Does it, not being a natural act in your eyes, negate an American citizen's rights?,

[Do-double-gg]

Is the earth not populating enough? Could a gene abnormality be what causes homosexuality? Does it not being a natural act in your eyes negate an American citizen's rights?

Ok I will go with this. Now does this make it normal or right? We try to cure disease and eliminate abnormalitys in this world. So are you saying that Homosexuality is an abnormality?

[TheRealThing]

In the amendments, under equal protection, as defined by the courts that define the law. When the states started handing out marriage licenses, it became a right for all, under equal protection, and SCOTUS agrees with me. Your god doesn't make the rules in the US.

I can tell you really strained with credulity on that one. And it's a sham. According to Thomas Jefferson, our rights are granted us by our Creator, certainly not the government. And that particular term (Creator) since capitalized within the original text of the Declaration of Independence, identifies a specific Being. God Himself. "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,"

I have posted at length as to why I oppose the idea of the present day SCOTUS handing down opinions that fly in the face of that one time widely accepted standard. Misinterpretations of the equal protection clause have about as much to do with the issue of validating the homosexual lifestyle, as the right to privacy had to do with legalizing abortion on demand. Both are legal arguments born of guile and do nothing to alter the truth, they're just intended to give cover until the law is changed to match the will of the liberal. It's the ultimate haze job and I ain't buying it.

At any rate, it is like Rick Perry has recently said. Issues of this sort are to be settled in the voting booth and November is close. :biggrin:

[Do-double-gg]

You want to compare a race of people to being Homosexual so are you saying that being African American is an abnormality?