Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Gay Marriage & the 10th Amendment
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Joe Cooper
Sep 10, 2015, 1:23:56 PM9/10/15
to
Elected Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant a marriage
license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the
freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her
refusal but the 10th Amendment which recites: “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.” What
the U.S. Supreme Court rules is not the “Law of the Land.” The Law of the
Land is the Constitution of the United States. Relying on a single
clause, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment which was designed
to protect the rights of former slaves, the majority of the Court
consisting of four political appointees and one “independent” made a
decision “at odds not only with the Constitution but with the principles
upon which our nation was built”, as Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent.
The majority decision held that all the states must give under the due
process clause of the 14th Amendment the law of a single state declaring
that homosexuals have the right to marry even when thirty states have
laws that state that marriage can only be a union of a man and a woman.
Nothing in the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the right to nullify
a State’s law that marriage can only take place between a man and a
woman. Kim Davis, the county clerk may refuse to marry homosexuals
because the Supreme Court unconstitutionally exceeded its constitutional
authority.
The Supreme Court held in its most recent case that behavior which only a
few decades ago throughout the United States and the English-speaking
world constituted a felony -- anal sex, oral sex, and mutual masturbation
among persons of the same sex -- was an absolute right and sufficient
justification for the right to marry. The Court gives homosexuals
engaging in such perversions all the rights and privileges of a spouse at
a huge cost to the taxpayer and forces all states to grant those rights
to those who were and still are commonly called “faggots”, a disparaging
term. Female homosexuality has always been treated more lightly than male
homosexuality since it involves at most mutual masturbation and oral sex,
which many heterosexuals practice. Anal sex brought us the AIDS epidemic.
What is the remedy when the Supreme Court arrogates to itself powers that
the Constitution never gave it? The 10th Amendment to the Constitution
states that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government
are reserved to the States or to the people. The States and the people
have the right to reject and disregard as unconstitutional such a ruling
by the Supreme Court. The thirty states which outlaw marriage between
persons of the same sex have a right and duty to resist this encroachment
of the Supreme Court on their rights guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to
the Constitution. They should resist this encroachment by calling out
their National Guards and preventing federal marshals from enforcing an
unconstitutional order.
Who should be able to determine whether the Supreme Court acted
unconstitutionally? Each State has that right under the 10th Amendment.
And people have the right to refuse to obey an unconstitutional order of
the U.S. Supreme Court unless their State of residence rules otherwise.
Source: http://bit.ly/1XPL0mm
--
"The sad part of this submission to evil is that leftists are abject
cowards and pack animals; stand up to them en masse, and they’ll scatter
like the capons and clucking hens they are. Instead, legitimate freedom
is being lost." (Selwyn Duke)
"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who aren’t and to impose their will on those who
didn’t ask for it." (Derek Hunter)
"Liberals never argue with one another over substance; their only dispute
is how to prevent the public from figuring out what they really
believe." (Ann Coulter)
license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the
freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her
refusal but the 10th Amendment which recites: “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.” What
the U.S. Supreme Court rules is not the “Law of the Land.” The Law of the
Land is the Constitution of the United States. Relying on a single
clause, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment which was designed
to protect the rights of former slaves, the majority of the Court
consisting of four political appointees and one “independent” made a
decision “at odds not only with the Constitution but with the principles
upon which our nation was built”, as Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent.
The majority decision held that all the states must give under the due
process clause of the 14th Amendment the law of a single state declaring
that homosexuals have the right to marry even when thirty states have
laws that state that marriage can only be a union of a man and a woman.
Nothing in the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the right to nullify
a State’s law that marriage can only take place between a man and a
woman. Kim Davis, the county clerk may refuse to marry homosexuals
because the Supreme Court unconstitutionally exceeded its constitutional
authority.
The Supreme Court held in its most recent case that behavior which only a
few decades ago throughout the United States and the English-speaking
world constituted a felony -- anal sex, oral sex, and mutual masturbation
among persons of the same sex -- was an absolute right and sufficient
justification for the right to marry. The Court gives homosexuals
engaging in such perversions all the rights and privileges of a spouse at
a huge cost to the taxpayer and forces all states to grant those rights
to those who were and still are commonly called “faggots”, a disparaging
term. Female homosexuality has always been treated more lightly than male
homosexuality since it involves at most mutual masturbation and oral sex,
which many heterosexuals practice. Anal sex brought us the AIDS epidemic.
What is the remedy when the Supreme Court arrogates to itself powers that
the Constitution never gave it? The 10th Amendment to the Constitution
states that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government
are reserved to the States or to the people. The States and the people
have the right to reject and disregard as unconstitutional such a ruling
by the Supreme Court. The thirty states which outlaw marriage between
persons of the same sex have a right and duty to resist this encroachment
of the Supreme Court on their rights guaranteed by the 10th Amendment to
the Constitution. They should resist this encroachment by calling out
their National Guards and preventing federal marshals from enforcing an
unconstitutional order.
Who should be able to determine whether the Supreme Court acted
unconstitutionally? Each State has that right under the 10th Amendment.
And people have the right to refuse to obey an unconstitutional order of
the U.S. Supreme Court unless their State of residence rules otherwise.
Source: http://bit.ly/1XPL0mm
--
"The sad part of this submission to evil is that leftists are abject
cowards and pack animals; stand up to them en masse, and they’ll scatter
like the capons and clucking hens they are. Instead, legitimate freedom
is being lost." (Selwyn Duke)
"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who aren’t and to impose their will on those who
didn’t ask for it." (Derek Hunter)
"Liberals never argue with one another over substance; their only dispute
is how to prevent the public from figuring out what they really
believe." (Ann Coulter)
Siri Cruz
Sep 10, 2015, 1:43:48 PM9/10/15
to
In article <XnsA51169C05C4...@213.239.209.88>,
additional powers over state governments.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
When is a Kenyan not a Kenyan? When he's a Canadian.
That's People's Commissioner Siri Cruz now. Punch!
Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
> Elected Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant a marriage
> license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the
> freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her
> refusal but the 10th Amendment which recites: “The powers not delegated
> to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution and gives the federal government
> Elected Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant a marriage
> license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the
> freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her
> refusal but the 10th Amendment which recites: “The powers not delegated
> to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
additional powers over state governments.
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
When is a Kenyan not a Kenyan? When he's a Canadian.
That's People's Commissioner Siri Cruz now. Punch!
Beam Me Up Scotty
Sep 10, 2015, 6:49:54 PM9/10/15
to
On 09/10/2015 01:43 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <XnsA51169C05C4...@213.239.209.88>,
> Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>
>> Elected Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant a marriage
>> license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the
>> freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her
>> refusal but the 10th Amendment which recites: “The powers not delegated
>> to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
>
> The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution and gives the federal government
> additional powers over state governments.
>
Does it give the Federal Government the power to define Marriage?
> In article <XnsA51169C05C4...@213.239.209.88>,
> Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>
>> Elected Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant a marriage
>> license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the
>> freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her
>> refusal but the 10th Amendment which recites: “The powers not delegated
>> to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
>
> The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution and gives the federal government
> additional powers over state governments.
>
--
That's Karma
Governor Swill
Sep 10, 2015, 10:28:46 PM9/10/15
to
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:50:05 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>On 09/10/2015 01:43 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>On 09/10/2015 01:43 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>> Joe Cooper wrote:
>>> Elected Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant a marriage
>>> license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the
>>> freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her
>>> refusal but the 10th Amendment which recites: “The powers not delegated
>>> to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
>> The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution and gives the federal government
>> additional powers over state governments.
>Does it give the Federal Government the power to define Marriage?
No, which is why the SCOTUS struck down DOMA and ruled that marriage
>>> Elected Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant a marriage
>>> license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the
>>> freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her
>>> refusal but the 10th Amendment which recites: “The powers not delegated
>>> to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
>> The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution and gives the federal government
>> additional powers over state governments.
>Does it give the Federal Government the power to define Marriage?
is legal between two consenting adults regardless of their gender.
The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection to all persons in all
states. The SCOTUS enforced that by denying states the right to
restrict marriage to opposite sex couples only.
Swill
--
Who kills more black people, stupid, cops [sic] or niggers? - One Party System
Siri Cruz
Sep 10, 2015, 10:31:58 PM9/10/15
to
In article <kOnIx.33439$zz6....@fx04.iad>,
Beam Me Up Scotty
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.
Amendment decisions they don't like? Hypocrite.
Beam Me Up Scotty
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.
DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> wrote:
> On 09/10/2015 01:43 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> > In article <XnsA51169C05C4...@213.239.209.88>,
> > Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
> >
> >> Elected Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant a marriage
> >> license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the
> >> freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her
> >> refusal but the 10th Amendment which recites: łThe powers not delegated
> On 09/10/2015 01:43 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> > In article <XnsA51169C05C4...@213.239.209.88>,
> > Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
> >
> >> Elected Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant a marriage
> >> license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the
> >> freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her
> >> to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
> >
> > The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution and gives the federal
> > government
> > additional powers over state governments.
> >
> Does it give the Federal Government the power to define Marriage?
Apparently, yes. Do you think cities and states should be able ignore 2nd
> >
> > The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution and gives the federal
> > government
> > additional powers over state governments.
> >
> Does it give the Federal Government the power to define Marriage?
Amendment decisions they don't like? Hypocrite.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Sep 10, 2015, 10:48:12 PM9/10/15
to
On 09/10/2015 10:31 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <kOnIx.33439$zz6....@fx04.iad>,
> Beam Me Up Scotty
> <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.
> DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> wrote:
>
>> On 09/10/2015 01:43 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>> In article <XnsA51169C05C4...@213.239.209.88>,
>>> Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Elected Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant a marriage
>>>> license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the
>>>> freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her
>>>> refusal but the 10th Amendment which recites: ³The powers not delegated
> In article <kOnIx.33439$zz6....@fx04.iad>,
> Beam Me Up Scotty
> <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.
> DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> wrote:
>
>> On 09/10/2015 01:43 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>> In article <XnsA51169C05C4...@213.239.209.88>,
>>> Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Elected Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant a marriage
>>>> license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the
>>>> freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her
>>>> to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
>>>
>>> The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution and gives the federal
>>> government
>>> additional powers over state governments.
>>>
>> Does it give the Federal Government the power to define Marriage?
>
> Apparently, yes. Do you think cities and states should be able ignore 2nd
> Amendment decisions they don't like? Hypocrite.
>
There is no Federal power delegated for guns or Marriage(or education
>>>
>>> The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution and gives the federal
>>> government
>>> additional powers over state governments.
>>>
>> Does it give the Federal Government the power to define Marriage?
>
> Apparently, yes. Do you think cities and states should be able ignore 2nd
> Amendment decisions they don't like? Hypocrite.
>
and dozens more items they regulate unconstitutionally).
States regulate marriage but shouldn't, and everyone tries to regulate
guns and yet the constitutions 2nd Amendment says "shall NOT be infringed".
Going by your own standard there should be NO government marriage and
since murder is illegal there need not be gun laws. Anyone killing
anyone else is going to prison or to be hung.
Trying to prevent murder is a failure. Like trying to cure poverty was a
Liberal failure.
Liberal ideology is a failure. There are still murders and there's
still poverty and still Christians in government jobs... the way to NOT
violate peoples rights is less government. If they don't license
marriage then government can't violate gays right connected to marriage.
But I've told you that before.
--
That's Karma
Siri Cruz
Sep 10, 2015, 11:19:01 PM9/10/15
to
In article <LhrIx.3078$pu3....@fx23.iad>,
depending on what their citizens want them to regulate. So far all states's
citizens want their states to regulate marriage.
Some states's citizens want their states to regulate guns in fashion the
Supremes decided was forbidden to states. People in those states are unhappy
with the court but I haven't heard any comments about how the court legislating
from the bench.
When the California Supremes upheld Prop 8, a lot people didn't like that, but I
didn't hear those people declare their religion (Our Sisters of Perpetual
Indulgence) demanded they ignore the court.
> Trying to prevent murder is a failure.
Oh. My.
Beam Me Up Scotty
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.
DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> wrote:
> States regulate marriage but shouldn't, and everyone tries to regulate
> guns and yet the constitutions 2nd Amendment says "shall NOT be infringed".
States can regulate anything not usurped or forbidden by the Constitution,
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.
DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> wrote:
> States regulate marriage but shouldn't, and everyone tries to regulate
> guns and yet the constitutions 2nd Amendment says "shall NOT be infringed".
depending on what their citizens want them to regulate. So far all states's
citizens want their states to regulate marriage.
Some states's citizens want their states to regulate guns in fashion the
Supremes decided was forbidden to states. People in those states are unhappy
with the court but I haven't heard any comments about how the court legislating
from the bench.
When the California Supremes upheld Prop 8, a lot people didn't like that, but I
didn't hear those people declare their religion (Our Sisters of Perpetual
Indulgence) demanded they ignore the court.
> Trying to prevent murder is a failure.
Siri Cruz
Sep 10, 2015, 11:29:09 PM9/10/15
to
In article <nue4vap87qraniejb...@4ax.com>,
One clause of DOMA was stricken which defined marriage for the federal
government which was decided an usurpation of state's rights. The other clause
was legal under article 1.
The second decision invoked the 14th: a class of people was being denied equal
protection without any demonstrated need of society.
Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No, which is why the SCOTUS struck down DOMA and ruled that marriage
> is legal between two consenting adults regardless of their gender.
Those were two different decisions on two different arguments.
> No, which is why the SCOTUS struck down DOMA and ruled that marriage
> is legal between two consenting adults regardless of their gender.
One clause of DOMA was stricken which defined marriage for the federal
government which was decided an usurpation of state's rights. The other clause
was legal under article 1.
The second decision invoked the 14th: a class of people was being denied equal
protection without any demonstrated need of society.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Sep 11, 2015, 12:26:02 PM9/11/15
to
On 09/10/2015 10:28 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:50:05 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 09/10/2015 01:43 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>> Joe Cooper wrote:
>>>> Elected Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant a marriage
>>>> license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the
>>>> freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her
>>>> refusal but the 10th Amendment which recites: “The powers not delegated
>>>> to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
>>> The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution and gives the federal government
>>> additional powers over state governments.
>
>> Does it give the Federal Government the power to define Marriage?
>
> No, which is why the SCOTUS struck down DOMA and ruled that marriage
> is legal between two consenting adults regardless of their gender.
Where is it written that it's "two" and "between" or "adults" and the
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:50:05 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 09/10/2015 01:43 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>> Joe Cooper wrote:
>>>> Elected Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant a marriage
>>>> license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the
>>>> freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her
>>>> refusal but the 10th Amendment which recites: “The powers not delegated
>>>> to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
>>> The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution and gives the federal government
>>> additional powers over state governments.
>
>> Does it give the Federal Government the power to define Marriage?
>
> No, which is why the SCOTUS struck down DOMA and ruled that marriage
> is legal between two consenting adults regardless of their gender.
14th says "persons" NOT adults and adult is NOT a legal description what
is an adult, in ObamaCare an adult is 26 and when you buy a pistol an
adult is 21 and when you vote an adult is 18 and when you marry in some
states a 15 year old can marry with parental/guardian permission.
That makes your statement less than believable.
What SCOTUS tried to do was force this Liberal Theocracy religious tenet
on Americans forcing us to recognize the equivalent of a Christian soul.
I have no soul and I'm NOT gay. I don't believe in a soul or in a
gay... why do you believe you can force me into your religion and use
government to create one national religion of Liberal Theocracy.
You have to prove gay exists like a Christian has to prove a soul exists
before it makes it's way into laws. This is a back door religion, much
like your Liberal Theocracy back door welfare programs where you call it
something else as in the mortgage crisis and then you force your subsidy
programs on the nation by pretending it's about equality. This is NOT
about equality it's about the Liberal Theocracy.
Well now is your chance for equality, NO one that has a soul (Christian
identity) or a gay identity or a hetero identity has a right to marry
because of that identity.... that identity is all in their head and
can't be proven by science. And while religion is equal, it's tenets
are NOT law.
The marriage law is what it is and this attempt to change it is an
attempt to force Liberal religious tenets on the rest of us. There is
no gay and it's a delusion in your head just as in anyones head that
believes in it. This is a psychological operation by the Liberal left
Theocracy to convince people that something they can't measure or see or
touch, is real and it's working on idiots like you.
Now you get to call me crazy and NOT produce one shred of evidence to
prove gay exists right?
> The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection to all persons
So those are beyond personhood... like flavors of ice cream... And all
people that like chocolate are NOT equal because they like chocolate. I
can discriminate and NOT sell chocolate and government can offer one
flavor and it NOT be chocolate, chocolate rights are a personal part of
your mind, not mine. It is for you to deal with like your soul is your
problem and you have no equal rights because you think you have a soul.
They're ideas "differences" in your head and can't be proven, they are
*NOT covered by personhood* they're covered by the religious rights of
the constitution. Things that are *ONLY* in your head are connected to
your belief and to your religion, and that's your's NOT mine. Keep it
out of my Government because it's your religion.
> in all
> states. The SCOTUS enforced that by denying states the right to
> restrict marriage to opposite sex couples only.
[""""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;""""""]
That is what covers gay in the constitution, since there is NO proof
gay is anymore real than a soul. Next you'll want anyone ignorant with
a soul to become a citizen and vote so that all the religious illegals
can vote for this Liberal Theocracy....
How will you force us to allow illegals with a soul or a gay identity to
vote? Say that their soul makes them equal to a citizen? That's as
believable as gay makes them equal to a person. The illegals "soul
identity" and "gay identity" are equal to citizens because they also
have a soul and are gay? That means any illegal that crosses the
border and has a soul or gay identity is instantly a citizen? Why stop
with gays being just equal persons... when they can be equal citizens.
But tell us how will you test people to find out if they really have a
soul or is they really have a gay identity? can you put that test in
the immigration laws?
This is another Obama and Liberal Scam.... there are no gays, they are
Psychologically damaged people that are delusional. At least until you
can prove they aren't, and that works because that was exactly the
SCOTUS ruling on human life inside a uterus.
They aren't "persons" until they prove they are. Which means that gay
is NOT anything but a delusion or religion or philosophy, until they can
prove it is real.
And the really funny/crazy thing here, is that that's the logic from
SCOTUS I saw their logic on human life and extrapolated it to gays. The
court is the one saying gays are not real until they can prove they are
real. I just used the courts standard of confirmation.
And that means that I'm NOT crazy but maybe SCOTUS is and the question
is which ruling by SCOTUS is crazy?
--
That's Karma
Siri Cruz
Sep 11, 2015, 1:33:16 PM9/11/15
to
In article <tgDIx.66273$EX5....@fx05.iad>,
Beam Me Up Scotty
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.
DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> wrote:
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.
DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> wrote:
> What SCOTUS tried to do was force this Liberal Theocracy religious tenet
> on Americans forcing us to recognize the equivalent of a Christian soul.
> I have no soul and I'm NOT gay. I don't believe in a soul or in a
> gay... why do you believe you can force me into your religion and use
> government to create one national religion of Liberal Theocracy.
Do you actually believe your own bullshit?
> on Americans forcing us to recognize the equivalent of a Christian soul.
> I have no soul and I'm NOT gay. I don't believe in a soul or in a
> gay... why do you believe you can force me into your religion and use
> government to create one national religion of Liberal Theocracy.
Beam Me Up Scotty
Sep 11, 2015, 2:07:42 PM9/11/15
to
On 09/11/2015 01:33 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <tgDIx.66273$EX5....@fx05.iad>,
> Beam Me Up Scotty
> <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.
> DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> wrote:
>
>> What SCOTUS tried to do was force this Liberal Theocracy religious tenet
>> on Americans forcing us to recognize the equivalent of a Christian soul.
>> I have no soul and I'm NOT gay. I don't believe in a soul or in a
>> gay... why do you believe you can force me into your religion and use
>> government to create one national religion of Liberal Theocracy.
>
> Do you actually believe your own bullshit?
>
Have you ever given any proof that gay identity exists anywhere but in
> In article <tgDIx.66273$EX5....@fx05.iad>,
> Beam Me Up Scotty
> <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.
> DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov> wrote:
>
>> What SCOTUS tried to do was force this Liberal Theocracy religious tenet
>> on Americans forcing us to recognize the equivalent of a Christian soul.
>> I have no soul and I'm NOT gay. I don't believe in a soul or in a
>> gay... why do you believe you can force me into your religion and use
>> government to create one national religion of Liberal Theocracy.
>
> Do you actually believe your own bullshit?
>
the heads of people that are sucked into the delusions of your Liberal
Theocracy?
--
That's Karma
Sn...@smack.com
Sep 11, 2015, 4:22:28 PM9/11/15
to
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:26:20 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov>
wrote:
>>> Does it give the Federal Government the power to define Marriage?
>>
>> No, which is why the SCOTUS struck down DOMA and ruled that marriage
>> is legal between two consenting adults regardless of their gender.
>
>Where is it written that it's "two" and "between" or "adults" and the
>14th says "persons" NOT adults and adult is NOT a legal description what
>is an adult, in ObamaCare an adult is 26 and when you buy a pistol an
>adult is 21 and when you vote an adult is 18 and when you marry in some
>states a 15 year old can marry with parental/guardian permission.
>
>That makes your statement less than believable.
STATES are able to enact marriage requirements---but cannot pass laws
that strip eligibile adults from obtaining that license.
The US constitution only grants ALL citizens the right to
marry----regardless of gender, race, etc
STATES can (and do) have requirements (withing federal law) that can
(and do) place restrictions on age, mental capacity, etc
You are losing---because (it's clear) you're arguing STATE authority
and FEDERAL authority in the same plane.
>==========================================================
"These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s
founding fathers.
Ronald Regan introducing the Mujahideen leaders, 1985).
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov>
wrote:
>>> Does it give the Federal Government the power to define Marriage?
>>
>> No, which is why the SCOTUS struck down DOMA and ruled that marriage
>> is legal between two consenting adults regardless of their gender.
>
>Where is it written that it's "two" and "between" or "adults" and the
>14th says "persons" NOT adults and adult is NOT a legal description what
>is an adult, in ObamaCare an adult is 26 and when you buy a pistol an
>adult is 21 and when you vote an adult is 18 and when you marry in some
>states a 15 year old can marry with parental/guardian permission.
>
>That makes your statement less than believable.
that strip eligibile adults from obtaining that license.
The US constitution only grants ALL citizens the right to
marry----regardless of gender, race, etc
STATES can (and do) have requirements (withing federal law) that can
(and do) place restrictions on age, mental capacity, etc
You are losing---because (it's clear) you're arguing STATE authority
and FEDERAL authority in the same plane.
>==========================================================
"These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s
founding fathers.
Ronald Regan introducing the Mujahideen leaders, 1985).
Beam Me Up Scotty
Sep 11, 2015, 5:31:13 PM9/11/15
to
On 09/11/2015 04:22 PM, Sn...@smack.com wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:26:20 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Does it give the Federal Government the power to define Marriage?
>>>
>>> No, which is why the SCOTUS struck down DOMA and ruled that marriage
>>> is legal between two consenting adults regardless of their gender.
>>
>> Where is it written that it's "two" and "between" or "adults" and the
>> 14th says "persons" NOT adults and adult is NOT a legal description what
>> is an adult, in ObamaCare an adult is 26 and when you buy a pistol an
>> adult is 21 and when you vote an adult is 18 and when you marry in some
>> states a 15 year old can marry with parental/guardian permission.
>>
>> That makes your statement less than believable.
>
> STATES are able to enact marriage requirements---but cannot pass laws
> that strip eligibile adults from obtaining that license.
Eligible according to whom? The Supreme court needed proof a human life
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:26:20 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Does it give the Federal Government the power to define Marriage?
>>>
>>> No, which is why the SCOTUS struck down DOMA and ruled that marriage
>>> is legal between two consenting adults regardless of their gender.
>>
>> Where is it written that it's "two" and "between" or "adults" and the
>> 14th says "persons" NOT adults and adult is NOT a legal description what
>> is an adult, in ObamaCare an adult is 26 and when you buy a pistol an
>> adult is 21 and when you vote an adult is 18 and when you marry in some
>> states a 15 year old can marry with parental/guardian permission.
>>
>> That makes your statement less than believable.
>
> STATES are able to enact marriage requirements---but cannot pass laws
> that strip eligibile adults from obtaining that license.
in a uterus was a person. Why does the Supreme Court suddenly NOT need
proof that gay is as real as that human life being a person needed to be.
Being a person must be proven, but being a gay is taken on faith?
They both seek the 14th amendment equality, yet one is denied that due
to a lack of faith and the other gets it due only to faith?
The court is making arbitrary decisions, with no proof that a soul
exists in the baby in a uterus they deny the 14th amendment protections
and with no proof gay identity exists the court gives 14th amendment
protections.
>
> The US constitution only grants ALL citizens the right to
> marry----regardless of gender, race, etc
>
The 14th amendment suggests all "persons" are "equal under the law"
> STATES can (and do) have requirements (withing federal law) that can
> (and do) place restrictions on age, mental capacity, etc
gay exists or is it in someone's head like a belief? Do they have faith
that gay must exist?
If I step into your delusion, does that make it real? SO if I agree that
gay existed it would still be something you can't prove to me exists.
The Supreme court agreeing with you that gay is somehow eligible for a
14th amendment consideration is not proof that gay is NOT a delusion,
only proof that the Supreme court is part of this delusional belief.
Like Christians believe in other people having souls.
--
That's Karma
Beam Me Up Scotty
Sep 11, 2015, 6:35:57 PM9/11/15
to
On 09/10/2015 01:43 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <XnsA51169C05C4...@213.239.209.88>,
> Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>
>> Elected Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant a marriage
>> license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the
>> freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her
>> refusal but the 10th Amendment which recites: “The powers not delegated
>> to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
>
> The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution and gives the federal government
> additional powers over state governments.
>
> Joe Cooper <drag...@removeunseen.is> wrote:
>
>> Elected Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant a marriage
>> license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the
>> freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her
>> refusal but the 10th Amendment which recites: “The powers not delegated
>> to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
>
> The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution and gives the federal government
> additional powers over state governments.
>
Does it give the Federal Government the power to define Marriage?
*NO*
It allows them to define "equal under the law".
SO while they can say that isn't equal under the law, they can't change
it to be "equal under the law" that's what the Legislature does.
--
That's Karma
The BORG
Sep 12, 2015, 12:48:49 AM9/12/15
to
Can you not understand what being Gay is?
Do you know that some people prefer dogs and some people prefer cats?
Is there any scientific proof as to why that is?
Dogs are filthy smelly animals and cats are beautiful.
Women are filthy smelly animals and men are beautiful.
So some men prefer men to women.
Same as some people prefer cats to dogs.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Do you know that some people prefer dogs and some people prefer cats?
Is there any scientific proof as to why that is?
Dogs are filthy smelly animals and cats are beautiful.
Women are filthy smelly animals and men are beautiful.
So some men prefer men to women.
Same as some people prefer cats to dogs.
Why is that so hard to understand?
Governor Swill
Sep 12, 2015, 1:46:21 AM9/12/15
to
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:36:18 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>On 09/10/2015 01:43 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>On 09/10/2015 01:43 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>> Joe Cooper wrote:
>>> Elected Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant a marriage
>>> license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the
>>> freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her
>>> refusal but the 10th Amendment which recites: “The powers not delegated
>>> to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
>>
>> The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution and gives the federal government
>> additional powers over state governments.
>>
>Does it give the Federal Government the power to define Marriage?
Then why do you support a party that claims the federal government
>>> Elected Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant a marriage
>>> license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the
>>> freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her
>>> refusal but the 10th Amendment which recites: “The powers not delegated
>>> to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
>>
>> The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution and gives the federal government
>> additional powers over state governments.
>>
>Does it give the Federal Government the power to define Marriage?
does in fact, have that right?
Beam Me Up Scotty
Sep 12, 2015, 7:50:30 AM9/12/15
to
I lean towards the Libertarians and yet I don't agree with their
platform either. I generally point out the errors in policy and ideology
of the party I disagree with, rather than supporting any party. I'm NOT
"pro" any party. None get it 100% correct. But the constitution has a
method to fix any errors it has.
The TEA Party is Limited to 3 points and none of them relate to gays and
social issues and so it has no dog in the hunt other than the
constitutionality of the Federal Courts actions. And that's what I have
discussed every time I post. I don't have a religion and I don't have a
political party, but I'm not neutral or in the middle, I can take the
extreme left or right position on any given political policy. I like
the TEA PARTY in that they focus on a few items which I agree with most
of.
I like Libertarian ideology since I agree with most of it. I agree with
Republicans very little, and I almost never agree with
Democrats/Liberals and the Left.
I don't know what Party you think I support, but I'm actually supporting
the constitution on this issue. SO I'm supporting the elected Democrat
that happens to be refusing gay identity as a real and provable thing.
It's all in their head and more akin to being delusional or a religion
than anything. Ironically the Democrat clerk believes she has a Soul
yet she isn't forcing her belief on me like the Federal courts are
forcing the gay belief onto me. What facts and science did the Supreme
court use in deciding gay identity is real and NOT in the mind of a
delusional person and sucking others into that delusion? They gave no
proof. That means a soul is as real as gay identity, and a human life
inside a uterus is as real a person as a gay identity is.
NO proof needed.
Until the Court repeals it's decision on abortion it will be in conflict
with this decision on gay marriage.... I can't accept either until they
reconcile the Supreme Courts duplicitous decisions on those issues. I'll
be ignoring and violating (if the need arises) and protesting these
rulings through all my writing until they resolve their obvious
contradiction in the rulings. This could take a while.
--
That's Karma
Governor Swill
Sep 12, 2015, 9:00:43 PM9/12/15
to
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 12:26:20 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov>
wrote:
>On 09/10/2015 10:28 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:50:05 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>> On 09/10/2015 01:43 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>>> Joe Cooper wrote:
>>>>> Elected Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant a marriage
>>>>> license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the
>>>>> freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her
>>>>> refusal but the 10th Amendment which recites: “The powers not delegated
>>>>> to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
>>>> The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution and gives the federal government
>>>> additional powers over state governments.
>>
>>> Does it give the Federal Government the power to define Marriage?
>>
>> No, which is why the SCOTUS struck down DOMA and ruled that marriage
>> is legal between two consenting adults regardless of their gender.
>
>Where is it written that it's "two" and "between" or "adults" and the
>14th says "persons" NOT adults and adult is NOT a legal description what
>is an adult, in ObamaCare an adult is 26 and when you buy a pistol an
>adult is 21 and when you vote an adult is 18 and when you marry in some
>states a 15 year old can marry with parental/guardian permission.
Typically in state statutes although the voting age is federal for
national offices.
It sounds like you're arguing for polygamy and marriage to minors. Too
bad for you - this isn't the Middle East.
>That makes your statement less than believable.
And your statements are?
>What SCOTUS tried to do was force this Liberal Theocracy religious tenet
>on Americans forcing us to recognize the equivalent of a Christian soul.
>I have no soul and I'm NOT gay. I don't believe in a soul or in a
>gay... why do you believe you can force me into your religion and use
>government to create one national religion of Liberal Theocracy.
That's not what they did at all. What they did was enforce equal
protection of the law for all persons.
>You have to prove gay exists like a Christian has to prove a soul exists
>before it makes it's way into laws.
I bet if you sucked me off you'd believe in gay.
>This is a back door religion, much
>like your Liberal Theocracy back door welfare programs where you call it
>something else as in the mortgage crisis and then you force your subsidy
>programs on the nation by pretending it's about equality. This is NOT
>about equality it's about the Liberal Theocracy.
Homosexuality isn't a religion because it isn't a belief. Neither is
heterosexuality, diabetes or astigmatism. Those are all human
conditions, unless you know people who worship the Blind God Myopia.
>Well now is your chance for equality, NO one that has a soul (Christian
>identity) or a gay identity or a hetero identity has a right to marry
>because of that identity.... that identity is all in their head and
>can't be proven by science. And while religion is equal, it's tenets
>are NOT law.
No, they aren't and that's why Davis got into trouble. She was trying
to give the force of law to religious tenets.
>The marriage law is what it is and this attempt to change it is an
>attempt to force Liberal religious tenets on the rest of us. There is
>no gay and it's a delusion in your head just as in anyones head that
>believes in it. This is a psychological operation by the Liberal left
>Theocracy to convince people that something they can't measure or see or
>touch, is real and it's working on idiots like you.
There's been no change in marriage law. If you think there is, the
onus is on *you* to prove it.
>Now you get to call me crazy and NOT produce one shred of evidence to
>prove gay exists right?
What difference does it make? Same sex marriage isn't about being
gay, it's about marrying who you want, gay, str8 or otherwise.
>> The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection to all persons
>
>Stop.... being gay is NOT a "person" and being hetero is NOT a person.
No, they're human conditions.
> So those are beyond personhood... like flavors of ice cream... And all
>people that like chocolate are NOT equal because they like chocolate.
But all ice cream eaters are equal under the law in that they can eat
or not eat any flavor they like.
> I
>can discriminate and NOT sell chocolate and government can offer one
>flavor and it NOT be chocolate, chocolate rights are a personal part of
>your mind, not mine. It is for you to deal with like your soul is your
>problem and you have no equal rights because you think you have a soul.
. . . as you busily try to gut the Constitution. Yeah, I see that.
Rightists just LOVE the Constitution right up until it gives somebody
a right they don't want them to have. Then the Constitution has to be
amended or rewritten or thrown out altogether.
>They're ideas "differences" in your head and can't be proven, they are
>*NOT covered by personhood* they're covered by the religious rights of
>the constitution. Things that are *ONLY* in your head are connected to
>your belief and to your religion, and that's your's NOT mine. Keep it
>out of my Government because it's your religion.
The only thing in my head is a brain. But should I happen to find
something else in my head, would you like me to email you pics?
>> in all
>> states. The SCOTUS enforced that by denying states the right to
>> restrict marriage to opposite sex couples only.
>
>SCOTUS is violating the 1st amendment.
>[""""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;""""""]
Congress has made no law respecting an establishment of religion nor
has the SCOTUS. They've done the very opposite. They've forced
government to STOP making laws based on religion.
>That is what covers gay in the constitution, since there is NO proof
>gay is anymore real than a soul. Next you'll want anyone ignorant with
>a soul to become a citizen and vote so that all the religious illegals
>can vote for this Liberal Theocracy....
I can prove it. Let's hook up. I'm sure we can find a queer bar
somewhere and with an introduction and a bit of background, I'm sure
any number of homos would be glad to show you that "gay" is real.
>How will you force us to allow illegals with a soul or a gay identity to
>vote? Say that their soul makes them equal to a citizen? That's as
>believable as gay makes them equal to a person. The illegals "soul
>identity" and "gay identity" are equal to citizens because they also
>have a soul and are gay? That means any illegal that crosses the
>border and has a soul or gay identity is instantly a citizen? Why stop
>with gays being just equal persons... when they can be equal citizens.
Gays *are* equal citizens. Immigrants are not. Therefore, your
comments regarding immigration are not relevant to the discussion.
Btw, immigrants, legal or otherwise are also protected by the 14th
amendment equal protection clause.
>But tell us how will you test people to find out if they really have a
>soul or is they really have a gay identity? can you put that test in
>the immigration laws?
No test is needed. Can't imagine why you'd think there is.
>This is another Obama and Liberal Scam.... there are no gays, they are
>Psychologically damaged people that are delusional.
More bad news for you. In the eighties when Reagan ended revenue
sharing, relabeled it "block grants" and then cut the funds, one of
the first thing most states did was empty their mental hospitals. Are
you suggesting that everybody who doesn't fit your idea of "normal"
should be locked up? Hitler and the Nazis had that idea. Didn't work
out so well for them.
>At least until you
>can prove they aren't, and that works because that was exactly the
>SCOTUS ruling on human life inside a uterus.
Again, that's irrelevant. All persons are to be protected and once
again, embryos and fetuses are not considered persons under the law.
But corporations are. Go figure.
>They aren't "persons" until they prove they are.
So that's why the unborn aren't persons? Because they can't prove
they are? Then you don't have any problem with abortion anymore
because those aren't persons?
>Which means that gay
>is NOT anything but a delusion or religion or philosophy, until they can
>prove it is real.
Already been proven to the satisfaction of the medical community.
You'll have to get over it if I accept their authority over your
opinion.
>And the really funny/crazy thing here, is that that's the logic from
>SCOTUS I saw their logic on human life and extrapolated it to gays. The
>court is the one saying gays are not real until they can prove they are
>real.
You're the only one saying that, and as usual, you aren't making much
sense.
>I just used the courts standard of confirmation.
>
>And that means that I'm NOT crazy but maybe SCOTUS is and the question
>is which ruling by SCOTUS is crazy?
Actually, the fact that you hold opinions in direct opposition to
SCOTUS rulings and medical opinion proves that you *are, crazy.
<I-WAS-JUST-GANG-PROBED-BY-...@IRS.FBI.NSA.CIA.EPA.FCC.DHS.CDC.DEA.AMTRAK.FreddieMac.ObamaCare.gov>
wrote:
>On 09/10/2015 10:28 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 18:50:05 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>> On 09/10/2015 01:43 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>>>> Joe Cooper wrote:
>>>>> Elected Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant a marriage
>>>>> license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the
>>>>> freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her
>>>>> refusal but the 10th Amendment which recites: “The powers not delegated
>>>>> to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
>>>> The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution and gives the federal government
>>>> additional powers over state governments.
>>
>>> Does it give the Federal Government the power to define Marriage?
>>
>> No, which is why the SCOTUS struck down DOMA and ruled that marriage
>> is legal between two consenting adults regardless of their gender.
>
>Where is it written that it's "two" and "between" or "adults" and the
>14th says "persons" NOT adults and adult is NOT a legal description what
>is an adult, in ObamaCare an adult is 26 and when you buy a pistol an
>adult is 21 and when you vote an adult is 18 and when you marry in some
>states a 15 year old can marry with parental/guardian permission.
national offices.
It sounds like you're arguing for polygamy and marriage to minors. Too
bad for you - this isn't the Middle East.
>That makes your statement less than believable.
>What SCOTUS tried to do was force this Liberal Theocracy religious tenet
>on Americans forcing us to recognize the equivalent of a Christian soul.
>I have no soul and I'm NOT gay. I don't believe in a soul or in a
>gay... why do you believe you can force me into your religion and use
>government to create one national religion of Liberal Theocracy.
protection of the law for all persons.
>You have to prove gay exists like a Christian has to prove a soul exists
>before it makes it's way into laws.
>This is a back door religion, much
>like your Liberal Theocracy back door welfare programs where you call it
>something else as in the mortgage crisis and then you force your subsidy
>programs on the nation by pretending it's about equality. This is NOT
>about equality it's about the Liberal Theocracy.
heterosexuality, diabetes or astigmatism. Those are all human
conditions, unless you know people who worship the Blind God Myopia.
>Well now is your chance for equality, NO one that has a soul (Christian
>identity) or a gay identity or a hetero identity has a right to marry
>because of that identity.... that identity is all in their head and
>can't be proven by science. And while religion is equal, it's tenets
>are NOT law.
to give the force of law to religious tenets.
>The marriage law is what it is and this attempt to change it is an
>attempt to force Liberal religious tenets on the rest of us. There is
>no gay and it's a delusion in your head just as in anyones head that
>believes in it. This is a psychological operation by the Liberal left
>Theocracy to convince people that something they can't measure or see or
>touch, is real and it's working on idiots like you.
onus is on *you* to prove it.
>Now you get to call me crazy and NOT produce one shred of evidence to
>prove gay exists right?
gay, it's about marrying who you want, gay, str8 or otherwise.
>> The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection to all persons
>
>Stop.... being gay is NOT a "person" and being hetero is NOT a person.
> So those are beyond personhood... like flavors of ice cream... And all
>people that like chocolate are NOT equal because they like chocolate.
or not eat any flavor they like.
> I
>can discriminate and NOT sell chocolate and government can offer one
>flavor and it NOT be chocolate, chocolate rights are a personal part of
>your mind, not mine. It is for you to deal with like your soul is your
>problem and you have no equal rights because you think you have a soul.
Rightists just LOVE the Constitution right up until it gives somebody
a right they don't want them to have. Then the Constitution has to be
amended or rewritten or thrown out altogether.
>They're ideas "differences" in your head and can't be proven, they are
>*NOT covered by personhood* they're covered by the religious rights of
>the constitution. Things that are *ONLY* in your head are connected to
>your belief and to your religion, and that's your's NOT mine. Keep it
>out of my Government because it's your religion.
something else in my head, would you like me to email you pics?
>> in all
>> states. The SCOTUS enforced that by denying states the right to
>> restrict marriage to opposite sex couples only.
>
>SCOTUS is violating the 1st amendment.
>[""""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
>or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;""""""]
has the SCOTUS. They've done the very opposite. They've forced
government to STOP making laws based on religion.
>That is what covers gay in the constitution, since there is NO proof
>gay is anymore real than a soul. Next you'll want anyone ignorant with
>a soul to become a citizen and vote so that all the religious illegals
>can vote for this Liberal Theocracy....
somewhere and with an introduction and a bit of background, I'm sure
any number of homos would be glad to show you that "gay" is real.
>How will you force us to allow illegals with a soul or a gay identity to
>vote? Say that their soul makes them equal to a citizen? That's as
>believable as gay makes them equal to a person. The illegals "soul
>identity" and "gay identity" are equal to citizens because they also
>have a soul and are gay? That means any illegal that crosses the
>border and has a soul or gay identity is instantly a citizen? Why stop
>with gays being just equal persons... when they can be equal citizens.
comments regarding immigration are not relevant to the discussion.
Btw, immigrants, legal or otherwise are also protected by the 14th
amendment equal protection clause.
>But tell us how will you test people to find out if they really have a
>soul or is they really have a gay identity? can you put that test in
>the immigration laws?
>This is another Obama and Liberal Scam.... there are no gays, they are
>Psychologically damaged people that are delusional.
sharing, relabeled it "block grants" and then cut the funds, one of
the first thing most states did was empty their mental hospitals. Are
you suggesting that everybody who doesn't fit your idea of "normal"
should be locked up? Hitler and the Nazis had that idea. Didn't work
out so well for them.
>At least until you
>can prove they aren't, and that works because that was exactly the
>SCOTUS ruling on human life inside a uterus.
again, embryos and fetuses are not considered persons under the law.
But corporations are. Go figure.
>They aren't "persons" until they prove they are.
they are? Then you don't have any problem with abortion anymore
because those aren't persons?
>Which means that gay
>is NOT anything but a delusion or religion or philosophy, until they can
>prove it is real.
You'll have to get over it if I accept their authority over your
opinion.
>And the really funny/crazy thing here, is that that's the logic from
>SCOTUS I saw their logic on human life and extrapolated it to gays. The
>court is the one saying gays are not real until they can prove they are
>real.
sense.
>I just used the courts standard of confirmation.
>
>And that means that I'm NOT crazy but maybe SCOTUS is and the question
>is which ruling by SCOTUS is crazy?
SCOTUS rulings and medical opinion proves that you *are, crazy.
Governor Swill
Sep 12, 2015, 9:02:00 PM9/12/15
to
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:33:12 -0700, Siri Cruz wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> What SCOTUS tried to do was force this Liberal Theocracy religious tenet
>> on Americans forcing us to recognize the equivalent of a Christian soul.
>> I have no soul and I'm NOT gay. I don't believe in a soul or in a
>> gay... why do you believe you can force me into your religion and use
>> government to create one national religion of Liberal Theocracy.
>
>Do you actually believe your own bullshit?
He's clutching at straws. Trying to come up with something that
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> What SCOTUS tried to do was force this Liberal Theocracy religious tenet
>> on Americans forcing us to recognize the equivalent of a Christian soul.
>> I have no soul and I'm NOT gay. I don't believe in a soul or in a
>> gay... why do you believe you can force me into your religion and use
>> government to create one national religion of Liberal Theocracy.
>
>Do you actually believe your own bullshit?
*looks* like logic to explain away the reality he can't face.
Governor Swill
Sep 12, 2015, 9:05:40 PM9/12/15
to
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:08:02 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>On 09/11/2015 01:33 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>On 09/11/2015 01:33 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>> What SCOTUS tried to do was force this Liberal Theocracy religious tenet
>>> on Americans forcing us to recognize the equivalent of a Christian soul.
>>> I have no soul and I'm NOT gay. I don't believe in a soul or in a
>>> gay... why do you believe you can force me into your religion and use
>>> government to create one national religion of Liberal Theocracy.
>>
>> Do you actually believe your own bullshit?
>>
>Have you ever given any proof that gay identity exists anywhere but in
>the heads of people that are sucked into the delusions of your Liberal
>Theocracy?
Homosexuality has always existed. Not only in humans, but in animals
>>> What SCOTUS tried to do was force this Liberal Theocracy religious tenet
>>> on Americans forcing us to recognize the equivalent of a Christian soul.
>>> I have no soul and I'm NOT gay. I don't believe in a soul or in a
>>> gay... why do you believe you can force me into your religion and use
>>> government to create one national religion of Liberal Theocracy.
>>
>> Do you actually believe your own bullshit?
>>
>Have you ever given any proof that gay identity exists anywhere but in
>the heads of people that are sucked into the delusions of your Liberal
>Theocracy?
too.
"Homosexual behavior in animals is sexual behavior among non-human
species that is interpreted as homosexual or bisexual. This may
include sexual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and
parenting among same-sex animal pairs. Research indicates that various
forms of this are found throughout the animal kingdom.[1][2] As of
1999, about 500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been
documented engaging in same-sex behaviors.[3][4] According to the
organizers of the 2006 Against Nature? exhibit, it has been observed
in 1,500 species.[5]"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals>
[pictured: mallards "kissing"]
Governor Swill
Sep 13, 2015, 5:15:51 PM9/13/15
to
On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 07:50:59 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>I don't know what Party you think I support, but I'm actually supporting
>the constitution on this issue.
I haven't seen you support the Constitution on much other than the
>I don't know what Party you think I support, but I'm actually supporting
>the constitution on this issue.
second amendment.
Sn...@smack.com
Sep 13, 2015, 6:57:19 PM9/13/15
to
On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 17:15:51 -0400, Governor Swill
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 07:50:59 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>I don't know what Party you think I support, but I'm actually supporting
>>the constitution on this issue.
>
>I haven't seen you support the Constitution on much other than the
>second amendment.
Which, it seems, (because he demands originalist
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Sep 2015 07:50:59 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>I don't know what Party you think I support, but I'm actually supporting
>>the constitution on this issue.
>
>I haven't seen you support the Constitution on much other than the
>second amendment.
interpretation)---doesn't even understand why it was created.
0 new messages