[Hoot Gibson]

Oh, to be sure, I will be in the next few years moving to a liberal place. I'm just waiting on my last kid to get through college. I'm sick of the redneck, homophobe, racist hicks, like the two that post here.

That's great news! I am happy for your fellow Johnson Countians.

[TheRealVille]

That's great news! I am happy for your fellow Johnson Countians.

I do notice that you skipped right over the "states can't decide peoples' rights"

Maybe I'll get to meet you before I'm gone.

[Hoot Gibson]

Maybe I'll get to meet you before I'm gone.

I doubt that. I am pretty selective about who I associate with and you are not likely to make the cut. nicker:

[TheRealVille]

I doubt that. I am pretty selective about who I associate with and you are not likely to make the cut. nicker:

You never know. You do come home sometimes.

[TheRealVille]

I do notice that you skipped right over the "states can't decide peoples' rights"

I want to make sure this is on record.

[Hoot Gibson]

I want to make sure this is on record.

This was not directed to me. I am not obligated to respond to all of your posts. Correcting your blunders keeps me pretty busy as it is. States certainly can grant more rights than granted by the U.S. Constitution. What they cannot do is deny rights that are protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Your posting of 14 SC decisions related to marriage rights and feeble attempt to link them to gay marriage just demonstrates the circular logic that you try to apply to the world around you. It is not that complicated. Marriage is between a man and a woman until and unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise. Its rulings on marriage apply to marriage. They do not currently apply to your warped vision of what marriage ought to be.

[TheRealVille]

This was not directed to me. I am not obligated to respond to all of your posts. Correcting your blunders keeps me pretty busy as it is. States certainly can grant more rights than granted by the U.S. Constitution. What they cannot do is deny rights that are protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Your posting of 14 SC decisions related to marriage rights and feeble attempt to link them to gay marriage just demonstrates the circular logic that you try to apply to the world around you. It is not that complicated. Marriage is between a man and a woman until and unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise. Its rulings on marriage apply to marriage. They do not currently apply to your warped vision of what marriage ought to be.

It was directed at TRT, but you felt the need to address part of it.

[Hoot Gibson]

It was directed at TRT, but you felt the need to address part of it.

You included it in a post to me and then felt a need to put in on the record again. Don't assume that if you post it and it goes uncorrected that everybody agrees with your point. Refuting misinformation is time consuming.

[TheRealThing]

It was directed at TRT, but you felt the need to address part of it.

Oh, sorry. I dozed off there for a second, LOL. I've tried to help you with your woeful lack of understanding as it applies to state's sovereignty there RV. However, I must say I have often admired Hoot's eloquence in revealing the law and certain aspects of the US Constitution. His explanation should have illuminated even your scarred psyche to one of the more noble ideals of traditional American conservatism. I especially felt his pain however, with the circular logic comment. :HitWall:

[RunItUpTheGut]

Where does the constitution say anything about marriage? So, all the amendments weren't legal? You think KY represents the majority, lol? At least you've got a fan on your non knowledge.

Tell me this.
Marriage comes from biblical thoughts, correct?
While some like to believe it doesnt, it clearly states so in genesis.

Why would those who oppose Christians and the bible want to follow thoughts from said bible?

Theres nothing wrong with there little civil unions. Its becoming more and more clear that every time you give a little, liberals want to take a lot.

This was my thought on the statement of a state by state basis. If you want gay marriage, vote on it! I promise you this state will NEVER vote to legalize gay marriage if that were the case.

[TheRealVille]

Tell me this.
Marriage comes from biblical thoughts, correct?
While some like to believe it doesnt, it clearly states so in genesis.

Why would those who oppose Christians and the bible want to follow thoughts from said bible?

Theres nothing wrong with there little civil unions. Its becoming more and more clear that every time you give a little, liberals want to take a lot.

This was my thought on the statement of a state by state basis. If you want gay marriage, vote on it! I promise you this state will NEVER vote to legalize gay marriage if that were the case.

Exactly why it shouldn't be left up to the states. If SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a right, states shouldn't be able to take away those rights.

[the other guy]

Oh, to be sure, I will be in the next few years moving to a liberal place. I'm just waiting on my last kid to get through college. I'm sick of the redneck, homophobe, racist hicks, like the two that post here. I do notice that you skipped right over the "states can't decide peoples' rights" post.

I think you would be happy there. You could really help the less fortunate. One of the highest sales tax rates in the country, the second highest gas tax and is one of the five least friendly states to retire in. I wish you all the joy in the world.

Oh yea be sure to not take a gun with,could mean big trouble.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Exactly why it shouldn't be left up to the states. If SCOTUS has ruled that marriage is a right, states shouldn't be able to take away those rights.

Well, if the Libs want some i do to. Isnt that the American way now?
Get a little, take a lot?

To be fair shouldn't each part of the country be able to decide that for themselves?

You seen what the proposed gun control laws caused, pure outrage among different states, and in the end, it shut the whole thing down. If you want to do that, move somewhere its accepted. After all, were already divided, might as well go ahead and fall.

[TheRealVille]

Well, if the Libs want some i do to. Isnt that the American way now?
Get a little, take a lot?

To be fair shouldn't each part of the country be able to decide that for themselves?

You seen what the proposed gun control laws caused, pure outrage among different states, and in the end, it shut the whole thing down. If you want to do that, move somewhere its accepted. After all, were already divided, might as well go ahead and fall.

Not on rights issues.

[TheRealThing]

Well, if the Libs want some i do to. Isnt that the American way now?
Get a little, take a lot?

To be fair shouldn't each part of the country be able to decide that for themselves?
You seen what the proposed gun control laws caused, pure outrage among different states, and in the end, it shut the whole thing down. If you want to do that, move somewhere its accepted. After all, were already divided, might as well go ahead and fall.

Of course they should and this is exactly what the Constitution guarantees on this very matter. The concept is referred to as state sovereignty. It will never be a problem here because Kentucky and other Bible Belt states will never vote in gay marriage.

[TheRealVille]

Of course they should and this is exactly what the Constitution guarantees on this very matter. The concept is referred to as state sovereignty. It will never be a problem here because Kentucky and other Bible Belt states will never vote in gay marriage.

Rights of citizens can't be infringed upon by states. The due process clause says this isn't a "states" issue. If you were right, VA could go back to banning blacks and whites from marrying, but......wait for it, SCOTUS has already made a decision there.

[TheRealThing]

Rights of citizens can't be infringed upon by states. The due process clause says this isn't a "states" issue. If you were right, VA could go back to banning blacks and whites from marrying, but......wait for it, SCOTUS has already made a decision there.

Wrong. Virginia legislators out of respect for the court obliged themselves to comply with the ruling which, applied to marital issues and priviledges afforded by the state.

[TheRealVille]

Wrong. Virginia legislators out of respect for the court obliged themselves to comply with the ruling which, applied to marital issues and priviledges afforded by the state.

"The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the convictions in a unanimous decision (dated June 12, 1967), dismissing the Commonwealth of Virginia's argument that a law forbidding both white and black persons from marrying persons of another race, and providing identical penalties to white and black violators, could not be construed as racially discriminatory. The court ruled that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute violated both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion for the unanimous court held that:
“ Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State. ”
The court concluded that anti-miscegenation laws were racist and had been enacted to perpetuate white supremacy:
“ There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. ”
Associate Justice Potter Stewart filed a brief concurring opinion. He reiterated his opinion from McLaughlin v. Florida that "it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the race of the actor."

[TheRealVille]

Equal Protection and Due Process. Wait and see.

[Hoot Gibson]

Equal Protection and Due Process. Wait and see.

Neither one of us has any idea what the ruling will be, RV. The difference is that I am smart enough to realize and admit it. If your hypocrisy detector were not damaged beyond repair, then you would realize how absurd it is for you to lecture TRT and me for giving opinions on this topic without law licenses, and then within minutes go into bathhouse lawyer mode yourself. :biglmao:

Gay marriage is not a right until and if the Supreme Court says that marriage does not mean what we all know it means. Your rambling on about a non-existent right won't change that fact.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Not on rights issues.

Why not?
Were not talking about Race issues.

This is a totally different thing. Theres noone being hurt by making gay marriage illegal. Segregation left many blacks in bad spots, were just talking about two persons of the same sex marrying.

I love that libs are so into science when it comes to issues of the mythological global warming pandemic, and in trying to prove God doesnt exist, and yet, they dont listen to simple biology to know that two men and two women dont go together.

[TheRealVille]

Why not?
Were not talking about Race issues.

This is a totally different thing. Theres noone being hurt by making gay marriage illegal. Segregation left many blacks in bad spots, were just talking about two persons of the same sex marrying.

I love that libs are so into science when it comes to issues of the mythological global warming pandemic, and in trying to prove God doesnt exist, and yet, they dont listen to simple biology to know that two men and two women dont go together.

Because states don't have the power to make constitutional rights calls. Read the print in it.

There's no one hurt by making it legal.

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
So why doesnt science play a part in this process?

[TheRealThing]

Why not?
Were not talking about Race issues.

This is a totally different thing. Theres noone being hurt by making gay marriage illegal. Segregation left many blacks in bad spots, were just talking about two persons of the same sex marrying.

I love that libs are so into science when it comes to issues of the mythological global warming pandemic, and in trying to prove God doesnt exist, and yet, they dont listen to simple biology to know that two men and two women dont go together.

He doesn't answer questions Run. He just tells folks how to think. To him civil rights have no limits or boundaries, and especially moral boundaries. In the secular humanist's world, once one accepts the flawed premise that states everything is relative, it is an easy matter to jump up on the liberal platform. No absolutes means no fetters of right and wrong. No judgment to face and no hell to shun. And for those who refuse to yield to liberal demands for compromise, there remains only one course of action, pass laws to just run over them. Such as the repeal of DADT, and legalizing gay marriage. They may not change the conservative mindset but, they can sure legislate us into subjection.

[TheRealVille]

He doesn't answer questions Run. He just tells folks how to think. To him civil rights have no limits or boundaries, and especially moral boundaries. In the secular humanist's world, once one accepts the flawed premise that states everything is relative, it is an easy matter to jump up on the liberal platform. No absolutes means no fetters of right and wrong. No judgment to face and no hell to shun. And for those who refuse to yield to liberal demands for compromise, there remains only one course of action, pass laws to just run over them. Such as the repeal of DADT, and legalizing gay marriage. They may not change the conservative mindset but, they can sure legislate us into subjection.

I take it you didn't see where I answered his questions.

I always forget that you are the know all end all on all things. I'm surprised that only made a carpenter as your profession when you had so much more potential, with all your knowledge. Let me be honest, the good thing is that old dried up coots like you, with your "40's & 50's style" ways will be dying off, and getting out of the way of progress soon enough. America is moving forward, and it appears that it isn't going to let people like you stand in it's way.

[TheRealThing]

I take it you didn't see where I answered his questions.

I always forget that you are the know all end all on all things. I'm surprised that only made a carpenter as your profession when you had so much more potential, with all your knowledge. Let me be honest, the good thing is that old dried up coots like you, with your "40's & 50's style" ways will be dying off, and getting out of the way of progress soon enough. America is moving forward, and it appears that it isn't going to let people like you stand in it's way.

LOL, yeah well, at least I was smart enough to understand Run's question. He pointed out that the case you posted dealt primarily with the question of race, not marriage. I can also grasp the basic principle role of the supreme court, "in this respect its role parallels that of the state courts of final resort in making the decisive interpretation of state law." In other words the SCOTUS parallels state courts to interpret state law. Never has the Supreme Court made a ruling that marriage is a right. The states do that.


FWIW, they made a superintendent out of me.

[RunItUpTheGut]

I take it you didn't see where I answered his questions.

I always forget that you are the know all end all on all things. I'm surprised that only made a carpenter as your profession when you had so much more potential, with all your knowledge. Let me be honest, the good thing is that old dried up coots like you, with your "40's & 50's style" ways will be dying off, and getting out of the way of progress soon enough. America is moving forward, and it appears that it isn't going to let people like you stand in it's way.

Forward in the socialist sense, correct?

[Hoot Gibson]

Forward in the socialist sense, correct?

You nailed it.

[TheRealVille]

LOL, yeah well, at least I was smart enough to understand Run's question. He pointed out that the case you posted dealt primarily with the question of race, not marriage. I can also grasp the basic principle role of the supreme court, "in this respect its role parallels that of the state courts of final resort in making the decisive interpretation of state law." In other words the SCOTUS parallels state courts to interpret state law. Never has the Supreme Court made a ruling that marriage is a right. The states do that.


FWIW, they made a superintendent out of me.

Yea? I've worked for several idiots that knew somebody, or kissed a lot of butt, and got a superintendent position. :biggrin:

[WideMiddle03]

I take it you didn't see where I answered his questions.

I always forget that you are the know all end all on all things. I'm surprised that only made a carpenter as your profession when you had so much more potential, with all your knowledge. Let me be honest, the good thing is that old dried up coots like you, with your "40's & 50's style" ways will be dying off, and getting out of the way of progress soon enough. America is moving forward, and it appears that it isn't going to let people like you stand in it's way.

:lmao:

what a joke
thankfully ppl grow conservative as they grow older
which means that there will be plenty of "old dried up coots" around in the future that vote conservative