Another Kim Davis inspired self-invented "gay issue"

by Simon 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • ReligionOfHatred

    Hi Kaik, great posts and ideas I have a different view though, its healthy to disagree right? I agree with you that large Churches were a terrible hinderance during the HIV Epidemic, instead of applying the rules of the Master, they used their true Master's attack on the Homosexual Community by attacking those with HIV and AIDs, they did such a injustice and now Kim Davis is rearing hatred's ugly head' above all common decency.

    You are a well spoken and educated writer, I've read many of your posts and enjoy your candid nature and fearlessness attacking ideas you know are specious! When Hitler met with Stalin he presented him all of Nietzsche's works while sharing the concept of "Superman", Superman's applied ideas happened by Hitler throughout Europe while the Masses sat back and did nothing to stop. There were pockets of resistance, church members executed (Including Bible Students, they can be proud of their heritage when they resisted Hitler vs Rutherford's stupid ass-kissing attempt by attacking the Churches and Jews, Rutherford was Satanic too!" The Bible Students can still be decent even if their leader turned wicked) as well as agnostics, atheists have fought hard against oppressive regimes! In China and Russia they were fighting destructive governments throughout the World, Good People stand up eventually I think?

    Christian and Agnostics, each group was sickened by Hitler's large scale operation to hurt the weakest members along with racial hatred!

    Hitler's works prove he was not a Christian, we can all make claim's about what we are but our actions demonstrate the proverbial "wicked tree" producing "rotten fruit-age". Logically how can anyone infer Hitler had anything to do with the real Jesus, he no more in common with Jesus these fools on this video below! That's why I said "If you stop calling Kim Davis (West-borough Hatred) Christian true Christians will stop the "Hitler Atheist Debate", let's just say Hitler was a freak, he betrayed both Darwin and Jesus Christ's plus the Moral atheist's view of life, Hitler was human excrement, can we agree with that? Even Fox News can do decent actions when attacking Satanic Abominations by the West-borough Church!

    Is Kim Davis more like Jesus or the Westbourgh Church of Hatred?

  • GrreatTeacher

    "Hitler's works prove that he was not a Christian" - ReligionOfHatred

    No True Scotsman Fallacy

  • GrreatTeacher

    Ratigan, people appeal to the Supreme Court because that's the way the US government is handled.

    We have 3 branches of government:

    Legislative, Executive, and Judicial

    This Separation of Powers is built into the Constitution to prevent any one branch from overreaching.

    So if the Legislative branch passes laws that overreach, it is the Judicial branch's job to interpret them as to their Constitutionality. If they are determined to be unconstitutional, then the laws are overruled.

    So, Obergefell went down in the exact appropriate way.

    BTW, this is a 4th grade social studies lesson. It's amazing how many Americans didn't pay attention.

  • Junction-Guy
    Except the Legislative Branch didn't pass these laws-the people did! via Constitutional Ammendment.
  • GrreatTeacher

    "The People" are not one of the 3 branches of government, as I'm sure you know.

    Any law is subject to review by the Judicial branch.

  • Village Idiot
    Village Idiot

    ReligionOfHatred: "Hitler's works prove that he was not a Christian..."

    My understanding is that Hitler was a lapsed Catholic. He wrote, in his book Mein Kampf,

    "And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord."

    No atheist Communist would ever invoke "the Lord" no matter how demagogic he would be.

  • Rattigan350

    Really village idiot?

    The more I read, the more I learn. My argument has been that if the 14th amendment gives rights to SS marriage, then why didn't it give women the right to vote. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Constitution did not grant women the right to vote. They said the 14th amendment does not give them that right. The Nineteenth Amendment, which became a part of the Constitution in 1920, effectively overruled Minor v. Happersett by prohibiting discrimination in voting rights based on sex. That is female pride, they worked long and hard for that. The states were divided, they lost a unanimous supreme court case but in the end got the constitutional amendment. Thus case closed. In the current case, they went to a known liberal majority and got the predicted result and the dissent is more than the majority opinion. If I were gay, I would not be proud of that. A hollow victory.

  • Rattigan350

    Grreat Teacher, what prevents the courts from making bad decisions and over reaching as they did here? They defined state law. The checks and balances would be for the legislature to rewrite the law or a constitutional amendment to be made.

    You mean it with down in a predictable way. Split down party lines. With Kennedy being the swing vote or rather the most powerful person in the country.

    Even Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision.

    The point is that the cases that the Court hears will always consist, in large part, of issues that are difficult not in the abstract but in light of the Court's particular composition. In the modern era, a significant number of 5-4 decisions is likely -- at least if the justices are not working hard to suppress internal dissent (as they did before the 1940s), and if lower courts are not systematically ignoring the Court's thinking.

    It follows that any Supreme Court will probably seem "evenly divided" in a significant number of important cases. In a hierarchical legal system, the Court will end up hearing disputes that are likely to split its current members -- even if their ideology changes radically over time.

  • Village Idiot
    Village Idiot

    Rattigan just for argument's sake, would you support a separate amendment dealing exclusively with gay rights? How about an amendment that specifies marriage as a right for all sexual orientations?

  • LisaRose

    Not a shallow victory at all. The supreme court rightly recognized that marriage should be available to all, they didn't need a constitutional amendment, they reviewed the law and determined that it violated constitutional rights. Laws are being reviewed and the constitution is being reinterpreted all the time by the supreme court, that is their job.

    Possibly women could have been given the right to vote the same way, but the fact is they didn't, for whatever reason. My guess would be that either the constitution was written in a way that did not allow them to interpret it to allow women to vote, or there wasn't the will on the part of the court to do so at that time.

    Neither way was wrong, it's how the system is set up. In one case the supreme court interpreted the constitution in a way it hadn't before, in the other the constitution was changed.

    Since you do not like the way the court interpreted the law your choice is to work to elect politicians who will appoint more conservative judges in the hopes they will reinterpret the constitution or to work to change the constitution. Whining that it is was done illegally is just sour grapes, since the supreme court is the ultimate authority on interpreting the constitution. They do have the last word, like it or not

Share this