DKW 86 7,418 Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Before you read this, i apologize for losing the three minutes it will take to read and ponder the craziness below. http://www.politicus...burg-kagan.html Within the past month, religious Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and evangelical Representative Steve King (R-IA) introducedlegislation in their respective chambers of Congress to prohibit the federal judiciary from hearing or ruling on same-sex marriage cases. Since the two congressional Republicans were unsuccessful in getting their legislation passed and signed into law, the religious right took matters into its own hands and issued a reported 300,000 restraining orders against liberal Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan prohibiting them from hearing or ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges. (This cannot be real?) http://dailycaller.c...rs-to-congress/ The case stems from the 6th Circuit Court’s decision to uphold same-sex marriage bans in Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky. According to their mandate in the U.S Constitution, the justices will decide whether states are required to issue marriage licenses between two people of the same sex, and whether states are required to recognize same-sex marriage licenses from other states under that section of the pesky document Republicans and evangelical fanatics refuse to acknowledge; the 14th Amendment guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law. One of the pre-eminent religious arbiters of all things relating to the Supreme law of the land, president of Abiding Truth Ministries Scott Lively, has unilaterally disqualified Justices Kagan and Ginsburg from hearing or ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges because he decided “they have committed an unparalleled breach of judicial ethics by elevating the importance of their own favored political cause of gay rights above the integrity of the court and of our nation.” As a typical religious hypocrite, Lively does not hold the conservatives on the High Court who attend churches preaching against homosexuality, or have been inordinately vocal in their opposition to gay rights to the same standards because something about god, bible, and traditional marriage. None of which have any relevance or impact whatsoever on the 14th Amendment or any part of the U.S. Constitution. How do you come to the conclusion that duly appointed and confirmed Justices do not have the right to hear cases? Does anyone that is sane want to ponder the opposing side doing this as well. Can we not just growup and act like mature folks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptau 169 Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 People are always calling for SCOTUS justices to recuse themselves. Certain politicians also wanted Clarence Thomas to recuse himself during one of the ACA rulings as his wife worked for an organization lobbying against it. Kagan has recused herself from numerous cases because she was involved in them as the US Solicitor General. http://www.scotusblo.../terms/ot2010./ The federal law concerning disqualification talks about not hearing a case where the justice has a financial interest or has been involved as an attorney. The vague part is the first sentence in the law. I'm sure there is case law that clarifies this. https://www.law.corn...ode/text/28/455 (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,418 Posted May 3, 2015 Author Share Posted May 3, 2015 UUUGGGHHHHHH... Recusal is in no way the same thing as being under a Restraining Order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Quote from article: "But because they are frightened and desperate, they are as dangerous as any rabid wild beast and dismissing them as anything less is a monumental error." I wonder if Tigger has any room in that bunker because I know what people do with "rabid wild beasts". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,122 Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 “ We’ll go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in ... " Showing the same level of commitment and dedication ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,136 Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Hah. Scott Lively. I'd like to be a fly on the wall wherever he is when the ruling is announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,122 Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Hah. Scott Lively. I'd like to be a fly on the wall wherever he is when the ruling is announced. I'm sure he's fully expecting another bad decision, like Roe v Wade, but at least he's tried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,136 Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 I'm sure he's fully expecting another bad decision, like Roe v Wade, but at least he's tried. How much do you know about Mr. Lively? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,122 Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 I'm sure he's fully expecting another bad decision, like Roe v Wade, but at least he's tried. How much do you know about Mr. Lively? No relation to Blake Lively , huh ? Not much at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,136 Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 I'm sure he's fully expecting another bad decision, like Roe v Wade, but at least he's tried. How much do you know about Mr. Lively? No relation to Blake Lively , huh ? Not much at all. He's one of the preeminent pink-baiters of this day and age. He was heavily involved in the writing of the Ugandan "Kill the Gays" bill. If there is a problem in the world, it can be traced to homosexuality. Islam, terrorism, communism, any given natural disaster, the nazis, oil prices etc. He's a fundamentalist loon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telling tiger 156 Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 What is his member name here? I kid.....sort of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,136 Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 What is his member name here? I kid.....sort of. He has many sockpuppets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
telling tiger 156 Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 What is his member name here? I kid.....sort of. He has many sockpuppets. Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,418 Posted May 3, 2015 Author Share Posted May 3, 2015 I'm sure he's fully expecting another bad decision, like Roe v Wade, but at least he's tried. How much do you know about Mr. Lively? No relation to Blake Lively , huh ? Not much at all. He's one of the preeminent pink-baiters of this day and age. He was heavily involved in the writing of the Ugandan "Kill the Gays" bill. If there is a problem in the world, it can be traced to homosexuality. Islam, terrorism, communism, any given natural disaster, the nazis, oil prices etc. He's a fundamentalist loon. I got this just from this article.Restraining Orders? WTH! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,122 Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 He's one of the preeminent pink-baiters of this day and age. He was heavily involved in the writing of the Ugandan "Kill the Gays" bill. If there is a problem in the world, it can be traced to homosexuality. Islam, terrorism, communism, any given natural disaster, the nazis, oil prices etc. He's a fundamentalist loon. Then he and Dan Savage need to be marooned on a desert island, far far from land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 The problem most have with Ginsberg and Kagan hearing the case is because they have both performed same sex marriage ceremonies. Its not like they can hear the case and be considered impartial participants who will render unbiased judgements. Ever looked at the symbol of Justice? Its blind folded for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptau 169 Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 UUUGGGHHHHHH... Recusal is in no way the same thing as being under a Restraining Order. You do know that these are symbolic restraining orders. They were not legally processed or served, if they even exist. Even msnbc mentioned they are symbolic. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-laughable-calls-high-court-recusal "more than a dozen leaders of anti-gay-marriage groups stood behind a wall of empty cardboard filing boxes stacked on the steps of the court on Monday morning. The boxes – 60 in all – were there to “symbolically” represent 300,000 restraining orders that Faith2Action President Janet Porter said will be delivered to the Supreme Court and to Congress to keep the justices from ruling on gay marriage. Just so we’re clear, these aren’t actual “restraining orders,” so much as they’re props created by anti-gay groups looking for a way to get far-right activists engaged." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,418 Posted May 4, 2015 Author Share Posted May 4, 2015 I was saying how this is just a silly waste of time. Restraining Orders? Really? As judges or even justices, yes they may have performed weddings. Does that mean if they married two cops that they must recuse themselves from any cases arising form any of the alleged Police Violence cases? Of course not. The people that are making this into far more than they need to. Look, married Christians have already done far more to muck up mariage. cheat on each other. hell they even kill each other. They do horrible things in the name of marriage all day long. There is no "sacredness" in a "Christian Hetero Marriage" and there never was. I say let the gays have SSM and let them find out how miserable most of the heteros truly are... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 '"They do horrible things in the name of marriage all day long. There is no "sacredness" in a "Christian Hetero Marriage" and there never was. I say let the gays have SSM and let them find out how miserable most of the heteros truly are... " You honestly believe people do horrible things in the name of marriage? Really? Surely, you didn't think that through. People are not perfect but that has nothing to do with the sacred aspect of the institution of marriage. I disagree with your opinion. Marriage is sacred because it is a covenant before and under God and is the basis of the family unit. The breakdown of the family unit is probably at the bottom of most of the societal problems we face in america today. People are not miserable because of marriage. They are miserable because they are human and life can be a real s*** sandwich at times. Its just like anythng else people do...there are successes and there are failures but marriage doesn't fail, people do. That has nothing to do with marriage. People are about as happy as they make up their minds to be....married or not. Some folks are so consumed with what they think they might be missing in life, they end up missing out on everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quietfan 233 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 My $0.02, or $0.01 depending on the going rate: Dumbfounded? Yes. Surprised? Not really. It's the same mindset that thinks: "Why not shut down the government for two weeks and endanger the good faith and credit of the United States--and be proud of it--in a hissy fit over health care?" "I know it's impossible to repeal the ACA under this President because I'll never get a veto-proof majority in the Senate, but let's waste our time voting on it 40-50 times anyway." "State courts don't have to obey federal courts." "It's okay for state constitutions to violate the Bill of Rights." "There's nothing wrong with undermining ongoing diplomatic negotiations by the State Department by inviting foreign prime ministers to badmouth them, or by writing letters to the very foreign leaders with whom we're negotiating." "We need to send more troops here, there, or yon. But don't ask for more money to take care of our heroes when they get home!" "I'm good Christian, I just don't want to feed the poor, care for the ill, welcome a foreigner, or show love for someone of the wrong faith, color, or gender orientation." ....With that kind of thinking, why not think lower courts or Congress can usurp the authority of SCOTUS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 '"They do horrible things in the name of marriage all day long. There is no "sacredness" in a "Christian Hetero Marriage" and there never was. I say let the gays have SSM and let them find out how miserable most of the heteros truly are... " You honestly believe people do horrible things in the name of marriage? Really? Surely, you didn't think that through. People are not perfect but that has nothing to do with the sacred aspect of the institution of marriage. I disagree with your opinion. Marriage is sacred because it is a covenant before and under God and is the basis of the family unit. The breakdown of the family unit is probably at the bottom of most of the societal problems we face in america today. People are not miserable because of marriage. They are miserable because they are human and life can be a real s*** sandwich at times. Its just like anythng else people do...there are successes and there are failures but marriage doesn't fail, people do. That has nothing to do with marriage. People are about as happy as they make up their minds to be....married or not. Some folks are so consumed with what they think they might be missing in life, they end up missing out on everything. I am marking this date on my calendar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,418 Posted May 4, 2015 Author Share Posted May 4, 2015 My $0.02, or $0.01 depending on the going rate: Dumbfounded? Yes. Surprised? Not really. It's the same mindset that thinks: "Why not shut down the government for two weeks and endanger the good faith and credit of the United States--and be proud of it--in a hissy fit over health care?" "I know it's impossible to repeal the ACA under this President because I'll never get a veto-proof majority in the Senate, but let's waste our time voting on it 40-50 times anyway." "State courts don't have to obey federal courts." "It's okay for state constitutions to violate the Bill of Rights." "There's nothing wrong with undermining ongoing diplomatic negotiations by the State Department by inviting foreign prime ministers to badmouth them, or by writing letters to the very foreign leaders with whom we're negotiating." "We need to send more troops here, there, or yon. But don't ask for more money to take care of our heroes when they get home!" "I'm good Christian, I just don't want to feed the poor, care for the ill, welcome a foreigner, or show love for someone of the wrong faith, color, or gender orientation." ....With that kind of thinking, why not think lower courts or Congress can usurp the authority of SCOTUS? Bingo. I hate to inform people here in America, but folks that have ZERO religious background get married all across the globe everyday. Atheists, Agnostics, Hindus, Shintos, Bahai', Pagans, even worshippers of BMW & Rodeo Drive marry all the time. Where is the "sacredness" in their marriages? There isnt any. I hate to inform you but there are people getting married everyday at the courthouse and at the local Elvis Wedding Chapel in Vegas. Where is the sacredness in that? TBV, You & I were likely married in God's eyes, in a church, before a Pastor. Billions more werent. Our marriages are sacred. Billions more arent. If that souinds crude, i am sorry am making a point. SSM isnt about OUR definition of marriage. There are Billions getting married that do not live up to what we proclaim everyday. Why are we picking on one set of beings, the LGBT community, more than the rest? THAT is the whole point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aubfaninga 16 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 My $0.02, or $0.01 depending on the going rate: Dumbfounded? Yes. Surprised? Not really. It's the same mindset that thinks: "Why not shut down the government for two weeks and endanger the good faith and credit of the United States--and be proud of it--in a hissy fit over health care?" "I know it's impossible to repeal the ACA under this President because I'll never get a veto-proof majority in the Senate, but let's waste our time voting on it 40-50 times anyway." "State courts don't have to obey federal courts." "It's okay for state constitutions to violate the Bill of Rights." "There's nothing wrong with undermining ongoing diplomatic negotiations by the State Department by inviting foreign prime ministers to badmouth them, or by writing letters to the very foreign leaders with whom we're negotiating." "We need to send more troops here, there, or yon. But don't ask for more money to take care of our heroes when they get home!" "I'm good Christian, I just don't want to feed the poor, care for the ill, welcome a foreigner, or show love for someone of the wrong faith, color, or gender orientation." ....With that kind of thinking, why not think lower courts or Congress can usurp the authority of SCOTUS? Bingo. I hate to inform people here in America, but folks that have ZERO religious background get married all across the globe everyday. Atheists, Agnostics, Hindus, Shintos, Bahai', Pagans, even worshippers of BMW & Rodeo Drive marry all the time. Where is the "sacredness" in their marriages? There isnt any. I hate to inform you but there are people getting married everyday at the courthouse and at the local Elvis Wedding Chapel in Vegas. Where is the sacredness in that? TBV, You & I were likely married in God's eyes, in a church, before a Pastor. Billions more werent. Our marriages are sacred. Billions more arent. If that souinds crude, i am sorry am making a point. SSM isnt about OUR definition of marriage. There are Billions getting married that do not live up to what we proclaim everyday. Why are we picking on one set of beings, the LGBT community, more than the rest? THAT is the whole point. Should we change and lower our age laws concerning marriage for muslims that wish to practice "maturity at puberty"?Why or why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptau 169 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 It should be remembered that the legal definition is same sex marriage, not homosexual marriage. While they are at it they should change the term to civil union in place of the term marriage and let the states issue only civil union licenses to all. Around 2% of the population identifies as homosexual and some subset of those people may decide to enter same sex marriages. However some heterosexuals might also enter into same sex marriages. Laws related to inheritance, taxation, and government benefits favor spouses, there could be same sex marriages between two people just for purpose of providing benefits or avoiding taxation. Two elderly women could provide social security and other benefits to each other. When one dies her property would be inherited by her spouse without taxation. So the government is out the extra tax and has to pay survivor benefits. Just an example of unintended consequences. There will be more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBlueVue 177 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 "TBV, You & I were likely married in God's eyes, in a church, before a Pastor. Billions more werent. Our marriages are sacred. Billions more arent. If that souinds crude, i am sorry am making a point. SSM isnt about OUR definition of marriage. There are Billions getting married that do not live up to what we proclaim everyday. Why are we picking on one set of beings, the LGBT community, more than the rest? THAT is the whole point." Last time I checked everything that happens, happens in God's eyes, good and evil. The venue of the ceremony is not what dictates the nature of the union. What dictates the nature of the union is its functional purpose in society as the basis of the family unit and the building block of society. The fact that people get married everyday that do not live up to their vows is a human failure and, use of their free will, not a failure of marriage and its purpose upon which civil society is built. It is an open covenant openly arrived at and provides an instructive basis upon which ALL covenants should be sealed. Its OK that we dont agree and we certainly do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.