tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post8206966750735606999..comments2024-02-19T07:24:42.397-08:00Comments on Anglican Curmudgeon: Standing up to the ObergefellersA. S. Haleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-1013439970738785662015-09-06T20:57:49.391-07:002015-09-06T20:57:49.391-07:00The decision is Obergefeller is so obviously at va...The decision is Obergefeller is so obviously at variance with.American constitutional law and with reality that accepting the decision while failing to see its glaring legal and philosophical defects should be a case of personal concern to anyone who values truth over mere assertion. Our American constitutional structure is based upon powers and rights not derived from government but origination from the Highest Power, with the people granting certain powers to the states and the federal government and decidedly not the other way around: with powers and rights derived from and/or granted to the people by their government. In addition, in effect holding that the marriage of a man and a woman is the same as the marriage as two persons of the same gender is obvious nonsense, leading to an "equality" without rational foundation as the basis for compelling action purportedly required by the Fourteenth Amendment. williamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15462159892385010372noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-29947669362904943272015-09-05T09:43:56.112-07:002015-09-05T09:43:56.112-07:00You mean like mayor Gavin Newsome when he ordered ...You mean like mayor Gavin Newsome when he ordered his clerks to issue gay marriage licences in SF before itvwad legal. Maybe you should have complained about that.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10089639827955617451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-9690451957731432292015-09-04T17:40:16.156-07:002015-09-04T17:40:16.156-07:00Lisa Coston, I have not approved your comment for ...Lisa Coston, I have not approved your comment for publication here, since it violates the rules of civil discourse, and is full of <i>ad hominem</i> slurs, rather than the "logic" you claim. I will respond to these points you try to make:<br /><br />"So, using your logic, states should still be able to deny interracial couples marriage licenses, since the Supreme Court decided it was unconstitutional, correct?"<br /><br />The case of <i>Loving v. Virginia</i>, to which you refer, did not involve defining or redefining what "marriage" means under State law. The Supreme Court did not have to change the meaning of that term to arrive at its result, as it did in <i>Obergefell.</i><br /><br />"Segregation should still be allowed, since it was state law that dictated segregation, right?"<br /><br />Note that segregation <i>was</i> upheld by the Court in <i>Plessy v. Ferguson</i>, and that by so deciding, the Supreme Court set the civil rights movement back by fifty years. And again, it did not have to redefine what "marriage" means to reach its "decision."<br /><br />" I wonder how many divorced individuals this 'martyr' has rejected for her faith?"<br /><br />So now you're saying that she, individually, gets to define what is a proper marriage? The whole point is that she applies the definition of marriage passed by the State through its legislature -- and that definition does not limit marriage to those who have not been married before. You're confusing the "marriage" that <i>churches</i> will perform with the marriage that she swore an oath to license <i>on behalf of her employer, the State.</i><br /><br />Come back if you want to try to be more civil. We don't discriminate against people here because of their views -- nor do we contend they should be jailed if they disagree with us.A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-19828475002936517172015-09-04T17:38:55.884-07:002015-09-04T17:38:55.884-07:00If the Law is wrong, a Christian person is bound ...If the Law is wrong, a Christian person is bound to disobey it. Persecution of Christians is now right here in the United States of America, the Leader of the world in Democracy. Watch. More is coming.This is just the tip of the iceberg. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17694379933519591949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-19402451350125214772015-09-04T15:29:51.657-07:002015-09-04T15:29:51.657-07:00With those weasel words "follow the law,"...With those weasel words "follow the law," SFitC, you are assuming in your favor the very point in dispute, <i>i.e.,</i> just what is "the law"? By her oath, Kim Davis swore not to follow the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Kentucky and U.S. Constitutions.<br /><br />According to your position, had you been the sheriff who captured Dred Scott in free territory, you would have cheerfully followed Chief Justice Taney's interpretation of the Constitution (to say that blacks were not U.S. citizens, but were white peoples' private property), and sent Dred Scott back to his southern slave master. Is that what you really mean by "follow the law"?A. S. Haleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05108498446058643166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-759178030677978044.post-36730629279493445272015-09-04T12:49:10.917-07:002015-09-04T12:49:10.917-07:00Maybe clerks and attorneys who don't feel obli...Maybe clerks and attorneys who don't feel obliged to follow the law ought to do the moral thing and leave their jobs and professional licenses behind....Small Farmer in The Cityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14271910054588466598noreply@blogger.com