SCOTUS decides for Constitutional right for gay marriage

[flockofseagulls104]

That seems very clear to me, although perhaps Rush had too much Oxy this morning and his thinking was even more off center than usual.

With that sentence, you invalidate your whole response.

When you pledged way back when that if Rush were to hire a lawyer re: the Oxy stuff you would never listen to him again, you demonstrated that you were not a credible or mature or serious-minded person.

And then he did and you did, further proving that.

ICM!

You pledged you would go away, but you are back. Shut up.

[Spock]

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/28/8857415/cn ... pride-flag

While we are all laughing at CNN for confusing a flag covered with dildoes and butt plugs for the ISIS flag-I have a question-why is a flag covered with dildoes and butt plugs flying at a family/public event?

[tlynn78]

Quick question - before Friday's decision, what was the split of states on the same-sex marriage issue? I just need numbers - I'm finding conflicting info.

[Bob78164]

Quick question - before Friday's decision, what was the split of states on the same-sex marriage issue? I just need numbers - I'm finding conflicting info.

I read recently it was 37-13, but a lot of the 37 were states where the issue was decided by federal court decision, rather than by legislative action or state courts relying on state constitutional law. --Bob

[BackInTex]

Quick question - before Friday's decision, what was the split of states on the same-sex marriage issue? I just need numbers - I'm finding conflicting info.

I read recently it was 37-13, but a lot of the 37 were states where the issue was decided by federal court decision, rather than by legislative action or state courts relying on state constitutional law. --Bob

Which is 37 and which is 13?

[tlynn78]

37 (allowing) 13 (disallowing) seems to be the consensus.

[SportsFan68]

37 (allowing) 13 (disallowing) seems to be the consensus.

Colorado started allowing when the 10th Circuit said that Utah had to. There is still a provision in the state Constitution that marriage is between one man and one woman. Since County Clerks started issuing marriage licenses to same-gender couples as soon as the 10th Circuit decision came down, that means allowing. But someone who really wanted to make a case for states' rights could probably say that technically, we don't allow until it goes to the voters as a constitutional referendum for outdated material in the constitution (such as the 1972 prohibition on spending state funds on the 1976 Olympics) and is removed.

[tlynn78]

Like Bob said, some of the confusion in the numbers I'm finding is that in some of the (allowed) states, it wasn't due to the state, or the people of the state, but due to federal rulings. My boss does a monthly column, and he's addressing the two SCOTUS decisions and his numbers didn't match what I'd seen, so I needed to check.

[silverscreenselect]

Like Bob said, some of the confusion in the numbers I'm finding is that in some of the (allowed) states, it wasn't due to the state, or the people of the state, but due to federal rulings. My boss does a monthly column, and he's addressing the two SCOTUS decisions and his numbers didn't match what I'd seen, so I needed to check.

I posted the numbers earlier, but eight states (plus D.C.) passed laws allowing gay marriage and three approved it by voter initiatives, for a total of 11. Twenty-six more states allowed by court order, either state or federal, for a total of 37.

[wbtravis007]

[quote="flockofseagulls104
With that sentence, you invalidate your whole response.

When you pledged way back when that if Rush were to hire a lawyer re: the Oxy stuff you would never listen to him again, you demonstrated that you were not a credible or mature or serious-minded person.

And then he did and you did, further proving that.

ICM!

You pledged you would go away, but you are back. Shut up.[/quote]

Well ... there you go again. Same old jerk.

Never made any such pledge. Were you dreaming about me or what? Well, I declare ... I think I'm blushing!

[flockofseagulls104]

With that sentence, you invalidate your whole response.

When you pledged way back when that if Rush were to hire a lawyer re: the Oxy stuff you would never listen to him again, you demonstrated that you were not a credible or mature or serious-minded person.

And then he did and you did, further proving that.

ICM!
You pledged you would go away, but you are back. Shut up.

Well ... there you go again. Same old jerk.

Never made any such pledge. Were you dreaming about me or what? Well, I declare ... I think I'm blushing!

If I thought for a minute you had any credentials to determine whether anyone was credible, mature or serious minded I might be concerned. You and BJ should get together and get a room. Or are you the same person?

[BackInTex]

Would you two get your quotes fix.... and get a room.

[mellytu74]

Would you two get your quotes fix.... and get a room.

I just spit coffee on my keyboard. Thanks for the smile. BiT.

[littlebeast13]

Would you two get your quotes fix.... and get a room.

I just spit coffee on my keyboard. Thanks for the smile. BiT.

I can't imagine SSS would let anyone steal flock's heart away from him like that....

lb13

[SpacemanSpiff]

And Judge Roy Moore being, well, Judge Roy Moore (part 3):

Alabama Chief Justice Moore: Gay marriage 'not in accordance with Constitution'

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/0 ... rt_m-rpt-2

But when asked repeatedly if the ruling by the nation's highest court meant that same sex marriage is now the law of the nation and of Alabama, Moore shook his head in disagreement.

"The law of the land is the U.S. Constitution. What we are talking about here is an interpretation of the Constitution."

Translation: "If I think my interpretation of the US Constitution is different than the US Supreme Court, mine trumps."

"Judges interpret the Constitution and if you interpret it as Justice Kennedy did (and four other justices) then same sex marriage is constitutional. But if you interpret it as justices Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas did, it is not constitutional," Moore said. "And not only is it not constitutional...it contradicts the Constitution and as Justice Thomas said it is at odds with the Constitution and the principles on which this nation were founded."

Sounds like he needs to go back to school for a remedial course on 'rithmatic. 5>4.

Asked if as the state's chief justice he would follow and enforce the law, Moore snapped that judges do not enforce the law. Asked if he expected probate judges and other judges and state officials to obey the law, Moore used examples of men who were judged to have followed wrong and immoral laws and orders in Germany during World War II.

"Could I do this if I were in Nuremberg (war crimes trials after WW II) say that I was following the orders of the highest authority to kill Jews?... Could I say I was ordered to do so?

Told that trial was about killing human beings, not gay marriage, Moore asked: "Is there a difference?"

'Nuff said.

[Bob Juch]

And now we have this:

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/0 ... riage.html

At first today, Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore said a state supreme court order effectively kept probate judges from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples for 25 days.

Moore, however, later backtracked.

"What the order means is that within that 25-day period no (probate judge) has to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple," Moore said.

Moore said that if he implied that the order prohibited the issuing of marriage license to same-sex couples then he misspoke.

Moore said in his view the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Friday ending states' gay marriage bans is now stalled in Alabama.

Parties have 25 days in which to contest the U.S. Supreme Court ruling before it becomes a mandate.

"In that 25-day period that (U.S. Supreme Court) order is not in effect," Moore said. "The (Alabama Supreme Court) order speaks for itself."

[SpacemanSpiff]

Now for the "things that make you go hmmmmm" category.

Judge Roy Moore founded the nonprofit Foundation for Moral Law. His wife is the current President of said foundation.

The 2012 Form 990 filing shows the Foundation had $557,870 in revenues.

It also had $374,310 in executive compensation (59.9%).

http://projects.propublica.org/nonprofi ... s/30502850

[SpacemanSpiff]

OK, now this one gets me really cheesed off.

This letter is from Win Johnson, a lawyer under Judge Roy Moore. When a public official, whose office is charged with running the State Courts in Alabama sends a letter out like this (probably directed at the governor, but he's kind of backtracked to "all public officials"), he needs to be removed or resigned. Period.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/0 ... _most-read_

Emphasis is mine.

Time for Public Officials to take their stand one way or the other

Jesus Christ is Lord of all. He came to save the world by His death and resurrection. That world includes you, me, the family, the civil government, all the institutions of life. He came to advance His Father's kingdom, not watch man run rampant upon the earth as if Christ had never come. As if it were the days of Noah!

Public officials are ministers of God assigned the duty of punishing the wicked and protecting the righteous. If the public officials decide to officially approve of the acts of the wicked, they must logically not protect the righteous from the wicked. In fact, they must become protectors of the wicked. You cannot serve two masters; you must pick – God or Satan.

The criminal laws against homosexual sodomy are for the protection of the righteous, particularly the young, the weak, the vulnerable, who need the law to teach them right from wrong when in a vulnerable state. The U.S. Supreme Court, although it claims to have done so in 2003, cannot take something that God calls a crime and declare it not a crime.

We're facing something even worse now, the civil government taking a new step and actually requiring the approval and sanctifying by the state of an evil behavior. Five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have now opined that the States of this country and all of us must approve of so-called marriages of same sex couples.

Therefore, the civil government must now become a persecuting power; you cannot avoid it. The civil government must protect what it approves of. It must protect the advocates' employment, their business dealings, their lives in every way. Against whom? Against those who think their lifestyle is evil. That's you and me, bible-believing Christians, the Church, etc.

Public official, what will you do? Will you stand up for the law of Alabama, for the people, for the weak and vulnerable, for the law of God? Or will you capitulate? Will you become complicit in the takeover by the wicked?

"I must follow the law," you say. Law? What law? There is no law anymore, there's just opinion. One day this, one day that. When the law becomes merely the opinion of a handful of people on the courts, there is no longer any law. There is tyranny. There is chaos. But there is no law.

The young and the weak, those that are caused to stumble by courts that approve of what is evil, are those whom Jesus referred to when he said, "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." Luke 17:2. You don't want to be complicit in allowing such stumbling blocks.

Don't use the Nazi war-crimes trial defense: "My superiors (or the courts) told me to do it." You're not standing for the rule of law when you capitulate to a law that defies God and exposes people to the wicked. You're just a coward making excuses!

Or will your conscience cause you to resign? Why would you leave the people of this State, their children, your children and grandchildren to the wolves, those who would rend the society apart with their denial of what's good and evil?

Your duty is to stand against the ravages of a superior authority that would go beyond its rightful power and force upon the people something evil. That's what the founders of our country did when Parliament exceeded its powers. That's what the Puritans in civil government in the 1600's did when the King exceeded his powers.

On Judgment Day, you won't stand in front of the media, the advocates of "Equality," or even the federal courts; you'll stand before the King of Kings, the Judge and Ruler over the Kings of the Earth, Jesus Christ. His law is not subject to the vote of man, and He, as the good and loving author of that law, does not exempt any nation from it. The law's author, speaking of Himself as "the stone which the builders rejected," said, "Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." Luke 20:18.

What can you do? You have authority as an elected official. You also are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and Alabama Constitution. Find a way to do so. Don't acquiesce to the takeover (actually the takedown)! Use your authority and every legal angle to oppose the tyrants! If necessary, just say, "No." It is not rebellion for you to say, "Your interpretation of the Constitution is wrong, beyond your authority, and detrimental to this nation." In fact, it's your duty. You're not opposing the rule of law, you're upholding it by saying that.

Sorry, but this stuff is scary.

[Bob Juch]

OK, now this one gets me really cheesed off.

This letter is from Win Johnson, a lawyer under Judge Roy Moore. When a public official, whose office is charged with running the State Courts in Alabama sends a letter out like this (probably directed at the governor, but he's kind of backtracked to "all public officials"), he needs to be removed or resigned. Period.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/0 ... _most-read_

Emphasis is mine.

Time for Public Officials to take their stand one way or the other

Jesus Christ is Lord of all. He came to save the world by His death and resurrection. That world includes you, me, the family, the civil government, all the institutions of life. He came to advance His Father's kingdom, not watch man run rampant upon the earth as if Christ had never come. As if it were the days of Noah!

Public officials are ministers of God assigned the duty of punishing the wicked and protecting the righteous. If the public officials decide to officially approve of the acts of the wicked, they must logically not protect the righteous from the wicked. In fact, they must become protectors of the wicked. You cannot serve two masters; you must pick – God or Satan.

The criminal laws against homosexual sodomy are for the protection of the righteous, particularly the young, the weak, the vulnerable, who need the law to teach them right from wrong when in a vulnerable state. The U.S. Supreme Court, although it claims to have done so in 2003, cannot take something that God calls a crime and declare it not a crime.

We're facing something even worse now, the civil government taking a new step and actually requiring the approval and sanctifying by the state of an evil behavior. Five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court have now opined that the States of this country and all of us must approve of so-called marriages of same sex couples.

Therefore, the civil government must now become a persecuting power; you cannot avoid it. The civil government must protect what it approves of. It must protect the advocates' employment, their business dealings, their lives in every way. Against whom? Against those who think their lifestyle is evil. That's you and me, bible-believing Christians, the Church, etc.

Public official, what will you do? Will you stand up for the law of Alabama, for the people, for the weak and vulnerable, for the law of God? Or will you capitulate? Will you become complicit in the takeover by the wicked?

"I must follow the law," you say. Law? What law? There is no law anymore, there's just opinion. One day this, one day that. When the law becomes merely the opinion of a handful of people on the courts, there is no longer any law. There is tyranny. There is chaos. But there is no law.

The young and the weak, those that are caused to stumble by courts that approve of what is evil, are those whom Jesus referred to when he said, "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." Luke 17:2. You don't want to be complicit in allowing such stumbling blocks.

Don't use the Nazi war-crimes trial defense: "My superiors (or the courts) told me to do it." You're not standing for the rule of law when you capitulate to a law that defies God and exposes people to the wicked. You're just a coward making excuses!

Or will your conscience cause you to resign? Why would you leave the people of this State, their children, your children and grandchildren to the wolves, those who would rend the society apart with their denial of what's good and evil?

Your duty is to stand against the ravages of a superior authority that would go beyond its rightful power and force upon the people something evil. That's what the founders of our country did when Parliament exceeded its powers. That's what the Puritans in civil government in the 1600's did when the King exceeded his powers.

On Judgment Day, you won't stand in front of the media, the advocates of "Equality," or even the federal courts; you'll stand before the King of Kings, the Judge and Ruler over the Kings of the Earth, Jesus Christ. His law is not subject to the vote of man, and He, as the good and loving author of that law, does not exempt any nation from it. The law's author, speaking of Himself as "the stone which the builders rejected," said, "Whosoever shall fall upon that stone shall be broken; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." Luke 20:18.

What can you do? You have authority as an elected official. You also are sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and Alabama Constitution. Find a way to do so. Don't acquiesce to the takeover (actually the takedown)! Use your authority and every legal angle to oppose the tyrants! If necessary, just say, "No." It is not rebellion for you to say, "Your interpretation of the Constitution is wrong, beyond your authority, and detrimental to this nation." In fact, it's your duty. You're not opposing the rule of law, you're upholding it by saying that.

Sorry, but this stuff is scary.

The American Taliban.

[jarnon]

Last week, the White House posted this video on FB:



Very nice. Today they posted this photo:



I don't think it conveys the message as well.