Posted on 09/05/2015 1:24:44 AM PDT by DoughtyOne
On June the 16th the SCOTUS handed down a decision on same sex marriage. The majority opinion agreed that same sex marriages must be recognized by the states. The states would have to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, and they would have to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states. LINK
None of us agreed with that ruling, but it was a much anticipated ruling. Conservatives knew this was coming for months. The ruling, one that could be a catastrophe for traditional marriage, was a potential nuclear bomb to the Biblical and even historic definition of marriage for most of recorded civilization.
This being the case, traditional marriage supporters had plenty of time to prepare. Special task forces could have been established. Methods of countering a potential SCOTUS bombshell could have been developed. None were.
Today we're very upset that a young woman was arrested for defying a court order and refusing to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple. It was against her religious beliefs, and for someone, we knew it would be. Tonight she remains in jail.
All day long today, Republican candidates have been making statements about this situation. Some of them have pledged support to this woman. Some are upset that others didn't express what they deem to be enough support. Lets be clear about something here.
That ruling came down on June the 16th. Before the August 4 & 6th recess, there were 28 days of business.
If our members of the House or Senate had been concerned over the sanctity of marriage, they could have introduced legislation within hours of the SCOTUS ruling. They didn't.
Yesterday the first court clerk was arrested for refusing to issue same sex marriage certificates. Since that moment some of our Republican candidates have been expressing a massive amount of support for the clerk, and they should have.
Some of these candidates who expressed the most support for the clerk, were quick to take other candidates to task for not showing enough support. This is where it gets rather interesting.
Some of the candidates who have shown the most support, are now taking other candidates to task for not showing enough. Strangely enough, three of those candidates served in the Senate and House. Did they express their strong support of traditional marriage there?
Was any single piece of legislation written and processed to address SCOTUS skulduggery? Were people like this clerk protected? Did Obama have to use his veto pen?
NO! NO he did not.
One whole month came and went and no legislative action was taken at all to rectify this situation.
We have supposed Constitutional scholars. WE have people who have argued before the SCOTUS, and know better than anyone else how this system works. They did nothing!
Now they are on the campaign trail, and it's expedient to rally to the defense of someone who could have been protected. She wasn't.
Today one non-politician has come under the gun for recognizing what the law on the books today is. He said he wished the clerk hadn't been arrested, but the law says she has to issue the licenses to same sex couples.
Folks, he's right!
Note this isn't what some folks have determined it to be.
This politician didn't endorse the SCOTUS actions.
He didn't approve of them.
He didn't say they did the right thing with their ruling.
What this politician said was that he was sorry this woman was arrested, but she has to follow the law. Yes folks, she does. We are a nation of laws.
What can this candidate do for the clerk now? He can voice support. He could come down an protest with others. Neither of those things can put an end to what is going on.
This evening there is a lot of gnashing of teeth. Guys are just so upset that this clerk has been arrested.
Where was that concern on June 17th to August 4th? LINK
Why is it that private citizen is being blamed here? Why didn't our Congress-critters do their job?
Is it any wonder we have a non politician kicking the politician's butts this year?
Cruz, Paul, Santorum... what action did you take to prevent this? Here you are acting as if you really care, but when you had plenty of time to know this was coming, and plenty of time to introduce legislation, you didn't.
Don't you dare try to blame this on Trump. Now nothing can be done. Where were you when something could have been done?
Could this be a case of being bitten in the rear end by what you wished for?
Thank you. Everyone seems to ignore the actual ruling. The Supreme Court didn’t “make” law, they ruled that the 14th Amendment of equal protection extended to cover gay marriage. (Discrimination)
Trump is right, this is now a law of the land.
Cruz (and others) are wrong and Cruz should know this. As a constitutional scholar, he must understand the ruling and I think he is pandering for votes with his stand.
I am not a constitutional scholar by any means. Age and strokes have caused me to lose a lot of what I learned in Civics many years ago. I would think though that this should have been expected, that gays would fight based on discrimination, and win.
Isn’t the way to fix this is to bring another case to the court that would reverse this? Since this Amendment has ended discrimination against black, women and handicapped, I don’t see that happening easily.
[[Trump said clearly she shouldn’t have been jailed,]]
I believe, and I might be mistaken, he simply said “I hate that she has been jailed” not that she ‘shouldn’t have been jailed’- perhaps he said that later, but I haven’;t heard him state that yet
[[Carson seem good]]
Might wanna rethink this one- Carson is a liberal disguised as a republican- worse than trump even:
his liberal views:
Make alternative fuels, not war:
Whether America’s ensuing steps into war in Afghanistan and Iraq will be seen as positive or negative remains to be seen, but I can’t help thinking there may have been a better way to react that would not have cost us so many lives and financial capital. I believe that if the president had seized the moment and declared that we would become petroleum independent within the next ten years as part of our effort to strip terrorism of its resources, that business, industry, academia, and everyone else would have been foursquare behind him, and we would have been much further ahead in the fight against terrorism than we are today...an enormous number of jobs likely would have been created in the process of switching over to a new energy source, and Wall Street would have been booming; third, the environmentalists would have been ecstatic; and fourth, but most importantly, the terrorists would have been deprived of much needed funding, which would have gradually strangled their efforts. (From America the Beautiful.)
Stop the deportations:
Even today we exploit our fellow human beings for work. Is it moral for us, for example, to take advantage of cheap labor from illegal immigrants while denying them citizenship? I’m sure you can tell from the way I phrased the question that I believe we have taken the moral low road on this issue. Some segments of our economy would virtually collapse without these undocumented workers—we all know that—yet we continue to harass and deport many individuals who are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their families. (From his 2012 book, America the Beautiful.)
Elizabeth Warren was right about everything:
The stock market crash of 1929 exacted a severe toll on the people of our nation and our legislators realized, in hindsight, that some of our banking and investment policies had contributed to the crash. Several laws were crafted, including the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial and investment banking activities. Sixty to seventy years later we forgot about many of the horrors of those difficult financial times as well as the reasons why we imposed appropriate regulation on speculative financial activity involving private resources. (From One Nation
People don’t kill people, handguns kill people:
I realize that some feel the United States and other world powers with nuclear weapons have no right to declare that others cannot have them. On the surface this seems like a fair argument, but can you imagine how many deaths would occur if everyone were given a handgun? Perhaps it would be fair to give everyone a handgun, but it certainly would not be wise. (From America the Beautiful.)
Find more at (it’s a liberal website I believe)
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/01/ben-carson-liberal-views-2016
Why? Do they abide in it? No! Both DEM and GOP elected wipe their arse with it. Disobedience has been done as a means of correction and done so successfully. In my county a group of men sent the state militia packing but not before capturing their commander. That was over the governor of the era sending in inmates to coal mines thus endangering everyone's life. Look it up the Coal Creek War.
The revolt saved the inmates very lives as history would show within a decade when two of the worse mine explosions in history would occur in that very community one killing all the men in the town.
Another one was more recent and took place about 100 miles south of there. A group of WW2 vets came home and basically found their county government under siege by a very small highly corrupt and abusive oligarchy. Look up the Battle of Athens, Tennessee. It lasted a matter of hours.
I think Tennessee may have even had a Marine who upon discharge from service & moving back to his hometown saw corruption and almost literally had a one man war with the county government including it's sheriff & judges and he won it. Yes he used force. He carried a big stick.
Things are the way they are because our government has lost all fear and all respect for The Constitution of The United States & We The People thus declaring themselves "We The Overlords of the Untouchables" and have abandoned the Constitution of The United States which sets forth the powers as well as the "LIMITATIONS" of the federal government. Specifically Article X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The government of the United States was never intended to become our authoritarian overlord nor used as a means for corrupt leaders to subvert it and in doing so overthrow our Constitutional Republic as we are seeing today.
IOW they themselves no longer respect political process nor the Constitution because as such they are now a sole party united simply by the lust of power. They do not care if we say Pretty Please Don't Do That it's against the Constitution for you to force citizens into such acts against conscience before GOD such as the enforcement of making baking Homosexuals a cake and marrying them the law of the land. Thus today we see business owners being fined by unelected Commissioners for obedience to their conscience. When government becomes that destructive it is not called the law at that point. No Indeed our founding fathers called it "Tyranny" and laws of the day be damned they didn't put up with it nor should we.
The Supreme Court made a "ruling" that applies to ONLY the litigants of the case they ruled on. This "ruling" DID NOT change a single law, nor did it invalidate the provisions of a single law on the books of the states not involved in the case. ALL of those present laws remain in effect fully unless brought before the Supreme Court and struck down one at a time.
The federal government has no standing in regards to legislating marriage and neither does the Supreme Court have the authority to make a ruling on marriage. It is not listed in the Constitution and remains to this day, a STATE issue only.
We need to stop assuming that what is presented from liberal framing of issues that their framing is correct. Those who say the "Law" has been changed on marriage need to find where it is allowed in the Constitution for the federal government to have any say so. The equal protection clause does not apply as gays have always had the equal right to marriage as it has always been defined throughout history. They do not have the right to redefine what marriage is.
If he agreed with the SCOTUS wouldn’t he be happy to see her go to jail?
You bet.
Trump not being more forcefully against Davis arrest, just wrong.
Cruz not being more forcefully against the SCOTUS ruling, just so unfair.
That's just hyperbolic BS and you know it Doughty...
This entire gay marriage political coup was orchestrated by the left and occurred in a flash fire sort of way whereby legislative proposals would never have stopped or slowed it one iota..
What we need Congress to do is to do something that they have the power to do but they have no precedent to use as they have never done it......ever...
It will take a lot of time to garner support, much less write a cogent piece of legislative artwork, in order to reign in scotus.
I don’t disagree with your comments. It does take personal involvement. I think the Democrats have us there. They network much better than we do. Here’s the catch.
Is it easier to network when you have no values, or when you do have them?
The Democrats can participate across the board because they have no values. Nothing is too vile for them to support. Well, one things is, a moralistic cause...
On the other side you have people who do have morals. They can’t support everything other groups do. Some things they view as wrong. So they wind up not being able to back each other.
Perhaps this is the true strength of evil. It can gather to destroy righteousness, because nothing else matters to them.
Someone supports abortion at any stage of pregnancy, oh sure they’re on the team. Someone supports teaching kindergartners about homosexuality, oh sure they’re on the team. Someone wants same sex marriage, oh sure they’re on the team. Someone wants to lower the age of consent, oh sure they’re on the team.
The Right can’t network like that. We search for moralistic purity. We look for and find problems with those we want to support.
Trump sees the law for what it is, and some folks would rather trash him than the folks who didn’t do their duty and offer up legislation that would have nullified the SCOTUS move.
One more disconnect on the road to victory...
An IOU for $190 billion? (LOL)
It would seem a Constitutional expert would be aware of this.
Further, why wouldn’t a Constitutional expert submit legislation to protect the Kim Davises out there?
Thank you for your comments.
I would ask folks to think of all the players here. Those that think Trump is the great Satan now, need to ask themselves if the actions or inaction of the other players were sound.
This is what he said on June 29th...
Ted Cruz offered a straightforward check for what he believes is an overreaching Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. The Texas senator and Republican presidential contender, himself a former Supreme Court clerk, said that states not specifically named in the ruling can ignore it.
"Article III of the Constitution gives the court the authority to resolve cases and controversies. Those cases and controversies, when they're resolved, when you're facing a judicial order, the parties to that suit are bound it," Cruz told NPR's Steve Inskeep on Morning Edition. "Those who are not parties to the suit are not bound by it.
States, Cruz said, "cannot ignore a direct judicial order. The parties to a case cannot ignore a direct judicial order. But it does not mean that those who are not parties to case are bound by a judicial order.
My comment on this is that there is nothing ted said here that is not the facts and totally true. This interview was with NPR, and the video is available, but it clear he resents the decision yet because scotus is constitutionally allowed to do what they did in this dispute, they cannot address this directly in any legislative way except by a non effective resolution or something.
The only way they can get at the nub of the problem is to regulate the judicial branch and that is going to be a very long and arduous task politically.
To fix this, We the People! Are going to be required to reassert our own authority and reclaim the powers we gave to the government!
We cannot sit back and blame one congress critter for this!
This problem disease is much deeper in the body politic and has to be excised not by petition or complaint, but by action!
Well I’m obviously on the side of those who have caused millions of deaths. You should know that by now. Why bother asking.
Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I was unaware of it. I may have known at some point, but it didn’t register here.
- - - - -
Alas Babylon reminded me that Santorum was voted out of office in 2006. I wanted to make sure everyone realized my reference to him in my comments above was an unintentional error.
It none the less was an error and I want you to be aware of it.
The SCOTUS ruling. Whether through judicial activism, legislating from the court, through flat out abuse of power, this is the law of the land now.
Until it is countered by Congress or in some way re-evaluated by the SCOTUS itself, this is something we live with now.
If the federal courts are going to uphold it, there’s not much we can do about it. It is effectively the law.
We don’t have to agree, but it will be implemented against us.
I agree.
And with regard to Roberts and Obamacare, the same fate.
Some folks here have raised some interesting points.
I particularly liked the concept SergeantDave came up with here. LINK
It seems to me this would be a great tactic to exploit for Davis attorney.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.