Westboro Baptist Church vs Kim Davis

[/]

It's not the first time the feds trampled all over state laws with their fancy "United States Constitution". Those southern states didn't even get the right to vote on whether or not they could keep slaves! All those Jim Crow laws still on the books in some states can't even be legally enforced anymore either. I mean sure, [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/jim-crow-laws-still-on-ma_b_28411.html"]Alabama only removed anti-interracial marriage laws in 2000[/url], but shouldn't states have the right to enforce all the unconstitutional laws on their books anyways? I mean they're written down and everything.

Maybe I'm just a bit jaded since my state's government has been filled with corrupt, inept, and nepotistic legacy Democrats since before I was born, but I don't see why anyone thinks it's a good idea to let state legislator be the top decider in what rights you should or shouldn't have.

Besides, marriage has for eons, above all else been a legal issue. It's just pragmatic to let the Federal government define it since they are the ones that deal with it. Do you think the IRS wants to hear a lesbian couple's life story every time they file between state lines? Do you think the ICE cares if some Mormons in Utah think they have the right to import 12 Russian brides? Clearly defining a legal definition across all jurisdictions saves us all time and money.

[Phatscotty]

It's not the first time the feds trampled all over state laws with their fancy "United States Constitution". Those southern states didn't even get the right to vote on whether or not they could keep slaves! All those Jim Crow laws still on the books in some states can't even be legally enforced anymore either. I mean sure, [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/jim-crow-laws-still-on-ma_b_28411.html"]Alabama only removed anti-interracial marriage laws in 2000[/url], but shouldn't states have the right to enforce all the unconstitutional laws on their books anyways? I mean they're written down and everything.

Maybe I'm just a bit jaded since my state's government has been filled with corrupt, inept, and nepotistic legacy Democrats since before I was born, but I don't see why anyone thinks it's a good idea to let state legislator be the top decider in what rights you should or shouldn't have.

Besides, marriage has for eons, above all else been a legal issue. It's just pragmatic to let the Federal government define it since they are the ones that deal with it. Do you think the IRS wants to hear a lesbian couple's life story every time they file between state lines? Do you think the ICE cares if some Mormons in Utah think they have the right to import 12 Russian brides? Clearly defining a legal definition across all jurisdictions saves us all time and money.

10th Amendment. The U.S. Constitution lays out the most basic protections and Freedoms, things not included in the U.S. Constitution are to be dealt with at a state level. That's what made us the United States of America rather than 'America'. That's why each state has it's own Constitution as well. And I'm pretty sick of people bringing up the interracial ban being overturned and pretending like that is the same thing as getting rid of the bride and groom concept in marriage. It doesn't make sense unless political correctness rears it's head to blanket all the critical thinking required with automatic answers of all minorities are the same. Race and gender are not interchangeable, nor if they were would that mean marriage has nothing to do with two people of different sexes coming together to combine into something bigger. It doesn't change that marriage combines the duality of masculine and feminine principles of nature.

However, the issue to me is why does any marriage need to be registered and licensed? Oh yeah, because of the tax code.

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

[subtleknifewield]

Well, the power to regulate, which includes the power to both create and destroy!

[Ltrain]

I protested Westboro Baptist Church twice when they came to raleigh. The first time was a more sensitive issue I care about, the second was just to be there in case things got out of hand. But I learned from both experiences that they are not really a group that matters but one family and their kids who were forced into protesting with them, and maybe a couple other people. Literally 10 people max both times, and they got national headlines for planning both protests.

They were positioned across the street both times with a small non obtrusive barrier (someone could've easily ran over there and smacked them in the face) and some very bored looking cops. The second event I went to see not so much protest was when they came to Elizabeth Edwards funeral. I was never a Jon Edwards fan though I did vote Kerry but growing up in raleigh we already knew Edwards was a douche bag. Her funeral was at the church my mom married my step dad at. Who protests a funeral? Jesus......

Here's a link for that http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/0 ... 94333.html

But basically, these small few have gobbled up enough attention with their God Hates Fags signs etc etc and I just assumed with Fred Phelps death last year, they were done.

[/]

It's not the first time the feds trampled all over state laws with their fancy "United States Constitution". Those southern states didn't even get the right to vote on whether or not they could keep slaves! All those Jim Crow laws still on the books in some states can't even be legally enforced anymore either. I mean sure, [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/jim-crow-laws-still-on-ma_b_28411.html"]Alabama only removed anti-interracial marriage laws in 2000[/url], but shouldn't states have the right to enforce all the unconstitutional laws on their books anyways? I mean they're written down and everything.

Maybe I'm just a bit jaded since my state's government has been filled with corrupt, inept, and nepotistic legacy Democrats since before I was born, but I don't see why anyone thinks it's a good idea to let state legislator be the top decider in what rights you should or shouldn't have.

Besides, marriage has for eons, above all else been a legal issue. It's just pragmatic to let the Federal government define it since they are the ones that deal with it. Do you think the IRS wants to hear a lesbian couple's life story every time they file between state lines? Do you think the ICE cares if some Mormons in Utah think they have the right to import 12 Russian brides? Clearly defining a legal definition across all jurisdictions saves us all time and money.

10th Amendment. The U.S. Constitution lays out the most basic protections and Freedoms, things not included in the U.S. Constitution are to be dealt with at a state level. That's what made us the United States of America rather than 'America'. That's why each state has it's own Constitution as well.

And the supreme court, which is legally entitled to interpret the rights entitled by the constitution, says that it's covered.

And I'm pretty sick of people bringing up the interracial ban being overturned and pretending like that is the same thing as getting rid of the bride and groom concept in marriage. It doesn't make sense unless political correctness rears it's head to blanket all the critical thinking required with automatic answers of all minorities are the same. Race and gender are not interchangeable, nor if they were would that mean marriage has nothing to do with two people of different sexes coming together to combine into something bigger. It doesn't change that marriage combines the duality of masculine and feminine principles of nature.

What exactly makes race and gender such different subjects? Sex and phenotype are just expression of pieces of DNA. Race and Gender are just mental generalizations of the perceived norms of said DNA results. Can you define every mutation and variation into such labels in a way that would satisfy written law in 100% of the cases? Say we did want to ban interracial marriage; heck, if you look in the bible there are PLENTY of scriptures on how bad it is to intermingle with foreigners. Can everyone agree who is a Jew, White, Black, or Asian? If not, it's far cheaper and pragmatic to let everyone get married.

Same question, can everyone agree what a man and a woman is? Classify every medically recognized variation in a way clear for the lawbooks: malformed genitalia, ambiguous genitalia, missing genitalia, missing sexual chromosome, extra sexual chromosome, infertile, internalized testes with working female parts, internalized ovaries with working male parts, male with feminized features due to hormonal defect, female with masculine features due to hormonal defect, etc. Which is the defined "Masculine" that can legally be combined with the defined "feminine"? Or, if perhaps we want to save taxpayer money and allow people to have their privacy, let everyone get married.

However, the issue to me is why does any marriage need to be registered and licensed? Oh yeah, because of the tax code.

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

If you want to talk about trying to reclassify marriage, then taking out all the legal aspects is some serious new age hippie-dippy weirdness.

Marriage has ALWAYS been a legal matter. Even in the bible it's all just rules. It's been a legal contract in every culture for thousands of years. The basis of marriage is not love, it's commitment; financial obligations, legal obligations, inheritances, citizenship, dowry, judicial rights, custody, and titles. For thousands of years the vast majority of marriages were arranged, sometimes even before the spouses' births. That is the right that all citizens are entitled to; the ability to manage those properties with a trusted legal partner of their choosing. Without that, who cares about marriage? It's just a word, anyone can say it, you and I are exactly as qualified and able as everyone else with a functioning voice to marry people together. Go ahead and do things that way if you want, plenty of kids do it. "Alakazam! This My Little Pony is now married to that Transformer!"

[Phatscotty]

It's not the first time the feds trampled all over state laws with their fancy "United States Constitution". Those southern states didn't even get the right to vote on whether or not they could keep slaves! All those Jim Crow laws still on the books in some states can't even be legally enforced anymore either. I mean sure, [url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/jim-crow-laws-still-on-ma_b_28411.html"]Alabama only removed anti-interracial marriage laws in 2000[/url], but shouldn't states have the right to enforce all the unconstitutional laws on their books anyways? I mean they're written down and everything.

Maybe I'm just a bit jaded since my state's government has been filled with corrupt, inept, and nepotistic legacy Democrats since before I was born, but I don't see why anyone thinks it's a good idea to let state legislator be the top decider in what rights you should or shouldn't have.

Besides, marriage has for eons, above all else been a legal issue. It's just pragmatic to let the Federal government define it since they are the ones that deal with it. Do you think the IRS wants to hear a lesbian couple's life story every time they file between state lines? Do you think the ICE cares if some Mormons in Utah think they have the right to import 12 Russian brides? Clearly defining a legal definition across all jurisdictions saves us all time and money.

10th Amendment. The U.S. Constitution lays out the most basic protections and Freedoms, things not included in the U.S. Constitution are to be dealt with at a state level. That's what made us the United States of America rather than 'America'. That's why each state has it's own Constitution as well.

And the supreme court, which is legally entitled to interpret the rights entitled by the constitution, says that it's covered.

And I'm pretty sick of people bringing up the interracial ban being overturned and pretending like that is the same thing as getting rid of the bride and groom concept in marriage. It doesn't make sense unless political correctness rears it's head to blanket all the critical thinking required with automatic answers of all minorities are the same. Race and gender are not interchangeable, nor if they were would that mean marriage has nothing to do with two people of different sexes coming together to combine into something bigger. It doesn't change that marriage combines the duality of masculine and feminine principles of nature.

What exactly makes race and gender such different subjects? Sex and phenotype are just expression of pieces of DNA. Race and Gender are just mental generalizations of the perceived norms of said DNA results. Can you define every mutation and variation into such labels in a way that would satisfy written law in 100% of the cases? Say we did want to ban interracial marriage; heck, if you look in the bible there are PLENTY of scriptures on how bad it is to intermingle with foreigners. Can everyone agree who is a Jew, White, Black, or Asian? If not, it's far cheaper and pragmatic to let everyone get married.

Same question, can everyone agree what a man and a woman is? Classify every medically recognized variation in a way clear for the lawbooks: malformed genitalia, ambiguous genitalia, missing genitalia, missing sexual chromosome, extra sexual chromosome, infertile, internalized testes with working female parts, internalized ovaries with working male parts, male with feminized features due to hormonal defect, female with masculine features due to hormonal defect, etc. Which is the defined "Masculine" that can legally be combined with the defined "feminine"? Or, if perhaps we want to save taxpayer money and allow people to have their privacy, let everyone get married.

However, the issue to me is why does any marriage need to be registered and licensed? Oh yeah, because of the tax code.

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

If you want to talk about trying to reclassify marriage, then taking out all the legal aspects is some serious new age hippie-dippy weirdness.

Marriage has ALWAYS been a legal matter. Even in the bible it's all just rules. It's been a legal contract in every culture for thousands of years. The basis of marriage is not love, it's commitment; financial obligations, legal obligations, inheritances, citizenship, dowry, judicial rights, custody, and titles. For thousands of years the vast majority of marriages were arranged, sometimes even before the spouses' births. That is the right that all citizens are entitled to; the ability to manage those properties with a trusted legal partner of their choosing. Without that, who cares about marriage? It's just a word, anyone can say it, you and I are exactly as qualified and able as everyone else with a functioning voice to marry people together. Go ahead and do things that way if you want, plenty of kids do it. "Alakazam! This My Little Pony is now married to that Transformer!"

A fine response. Let's just look at one thing you mentioned a little closer. Legal contract - what is the history and form of the contract in the U.S.A.? When did Federal government begin to license marriages and why? Why was it a state issue for 200 years?

And as an aside, I find it funny you say marriage is not about love it's about money. I remember everyone was saying it's ALL about love and going on and on and on about how it definitely wasn't about money n benefits.. I also remember calling it at the time that afterwards people would admit it wasn't about love at all and it was about money.

[Phatscotty]

I protested Westboro Baptist Church twice when they came to raleigh. The first time was a more sensitive issue I care about, the second was just to be there in case things got out of hand. But I learned from both experiences that they are not really a group that matters but one family and their kids who were forced into protesting with them, and maybe a couple other people. Literally 10 people max both times, and they got national headlines for planning both protests.

It might raise an eyebrow when wondered how those 10 people have been morphed into a media image represented as the official mouthpiece of all Christianity in the minds of almost a majority of Americans......

eh?

[warmonger1981]

@ /

Do you have a problem with a 60 year old caucasian male who now identifies himself as a 15 year old black girl wanting to marry and have sexual relations with a 13 year old? Does age play a factor in ones mental capabilities or maturity? Remember your only as old as you feel. Does a 60 year old caucasian have the same access to Affirmative Action laws as a 20 year old African-American? Marriage was mostly for strategic purposes in the beginning but most people identify marriage with love nowadays. The Bible says only a man may lay with a woman although there are now gay preachers within the church.

[Ltrain]

I protested Westboro Baptist Church twice when they came to raleigh. The first time was a more sensitive issue I care about, the second was just to be there in case things got out of hand. But I learned from both experiences that they are not really a group that matters but one family and their kids who were forced into protesting with them, and maybe a couple other people. Literally 10 people max both times, and they got national headlines for planning both protests.

It might raise an eyebrow when wondered how those 10 people have been morphed into a media image represented as the official mouthpiece of all Christianity in the minds of almost a majority of Americans......

eh?

I don't think a majority of (non christian) Americans see them as the mouthpiece of Christianity. But then again 29% of americans still think Obama is a Muslim so...

I was surprised when I saw this thread I just assumed with Fred's death that they were done. Ug.

[subtleknifewield]

Honestly, what would be wrong if Obama WAS a Muslim, anyway? :V

We've had Roman Catholics and they've committed atrocities in the past too, should they get persecuted for the sins of others?

Not every religious believer is a fundamentalist.

[Phatscotty]

I protested Westboro Baptist Church twice when they came to raleigh. The first time was a more sensitive issue I care about, the second was just to be there in case things got out of hand. But I learned from both experiences that they are not really a group that matters but one family and their kids who were forced into protesting with them, and maybe a couple other people. Literally 10 people max both times, and they got national headlines for planning both protests.

It might raise an eyebrow when wondered how those 10 people have been morphed into a media image represented as the official mouthpiece of all Christianity in the minds of almost a majority of Americans......

eh?

I don't think a majority of (non christian) Americans see them as the mouthpiece of Christianity. But then again 29% of americans still think Obama is a Muslim so...

I was surprised when I saw this thread I just assumed with Fred's death that they were done. Ug.

Well yeah I don't think it's provable how many Americans think this, I believe it thought. But let's pose the question of who/what competes/represents Christianity in the media against WBC for the lasting images tv media programming programs into viewing American minds? I hope you can agree that imagery and emotion are the 2 widest gateways into the way people feel and think and are even controlled, specifically Americans.

Competition/representation - pedophile priests?

[warmonger1981]

Checkmate again.

[subtleknifewield]

Checkmate again.

If you say so.

[jonesthecurl]

I protested Westboro Baptist Church twice when they came to raleigh. The first time was a more sensitive issue I care about, the second was just to be there in case things got out of hand. But I learned from both experiences that they are not really a group that matters but one family and their kids who were forced into protesting with them, and maybe a couple other people. Literally 10 people max both times, and they got national headlines for planning both protests.

It might raise an eyebrow when wondered how those 10 people have been morphed into a media image represented as the official mouthpiece of all Christianity in the minds of almost a majority of Americans......

eh?

I don't think a majority of (non christian) Americans see them as the mouthpiece of Christianity. But then again 29% of americans still think Obama is a Muslim so...

I was surprised when I saw this thread I just assumed with Fred's death that they were done. Ug.

Well yeah I don't think it's provable how many Americans think this, I believe it thought. But let's pose the question of who/what competes/represents Christianity in the media against WBC for the lasting images tv media programming programs into viewing American minds? I hope you can agree that imagery and emotion are the 2 widest gateways into the way people feel and think and are even controlled, specifically Americans.

Competition/representation - pedophile priests?

Money-hungry evangelists? The 700 Club?

[DaGip]

Honestly, what would be wrong if Obama WAS a Muslim, anyway? :V

We've had Roman Catholics and they've committed atrocities in the past too, should they get persecuted for the sins of others?

Not every religious believer is a fundamentalist.

The teaching is otherwise:

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

I don't think it's fair to put Kim Davis on the same platform as Islamic-jihadists.

[DaGip]

I don't think it's fair to put Kim Davis on the same platform as Islamic-jihadists.

[subtleknifewield]

Honestly, what would be wrong if Obama WAS a Muslim, anyway? :V

We've had Roman Catholics and they've committed atrocities in the past too, should they get persecuted for the sins of others?

Not every religious believer is a fundamentalist.

The teaching is otherwise:

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Let me ask this question.

You don't see every Muslim out killing people or urging others to do so, do you?

[subtleknifewield]

I don't think it's fair to put Kim Davis on the same platform as Islamic-jihadists.

I'm not, the conversation took a side-turn there.

[DaGip]

Honestly, what would be wrong if Obama WAS a Muslim, anyway? :V

We've had Roman Catholics and they've committed atrocities in the past too, should they get persecuted for the sins of others?

Not every religious believer is a fundamentalist.

The teaching is otherwise:

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Let me ask this question.

You don't see every Muslim out killing people or urging others to do so, do you?

The teachings speak for themselves.

If you want to make this a debate about Islam vs Christianity...you can start another thread.

[subtleknifewield]

Honestly, what would be wrong if Obama WAS a Muslim, anyway? :V

We've had Roman Catholics and they've committed atrocities in the past too, should they get persecuted for the sins of others?

Not every religious believer is a fundamentalist.

The teaching is otherwise:

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Let me ask this question.

You don't see every Muslim out killing people or urging others to do so, do you?

The teachings speak for themselves.

That doesn't mean the believers are fundamentalists.

The Bible also says something along the lines of 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' but you don't see Christians out mass murdering Wiccans, either.

You are skirting the point entirely.

[subtleknifewield]

If you want to make this a debate about Islam vs Christianity...you can start another thread.

Where do I make it about Christianity vs. Islam? Please point that spot out.

[DaGip]

Honestly, what would be wrong if Obama WAS a Muslim, anyway? :V

We've had Roman Catholics and they've committed atrocities in the past too, should they get persecuted for the sins of others?

Not every religious believer is a fundamentalist.

The teaching is otherwise:

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Let me ask this question.

You don't see every Muslim out killing people or urging others to do so, do you?

The teachings speak for themselves.

That doesn't mean the believers are fundamentalists.

The Bible also says something along the lines of 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live' but you don't see Christians out mass murdering Wiccans, either.

You are skirting the point entirely.

This thread is about Kim Davis. If you want another debate on Christianity and the evils of religion, start another thread.

[subtleknifewield]

I wasn't even trying to turn it into one, I was making a comment on something someone else said about the rumor of Obama being a Muslim.

[Phatscotty]

I protested Westboro Baptist Church twice when they came to raleigh. The first time was a more sensitive issue I care about, the second was just to be there in case things got out of hand. But I learned from both experiences that they are not really a group that matters but one family and their kids who were forced into protesting with them, and maybe a couple other people. Literally 10 people max both times, and they got national headlines for planning both protests.

It might raise an eyebrow when wondered how those 10 people have been morphed into a media image represented as the official mouthpiece of all Christianity in the minds of almost a majority of Americans......

eh?

I don't think a majority of (non christian) Americans see them as the mouthpiece of Christianity. But then again 29% of americans still think Obama is a Muslim so...

I was surprised when I saw this thread I just assumed with Fred's death that they were done. Ug.

Well yeah I don't think it's provable how many Americans think this, I believe it thought. But let's pose the question of who/what competes/represents Christianity in the media against WBC for the lasting images tv media programming programs into viewing American minds? I hope you can agree that imagery and emotion are the 2 widest gateways into the way people feel and think and are even controlled, specifically Americans.

Competition/representation - pedophile priests?

Money-hungry evangelists? The 700 Club?

okay, true. But is the 700 club promoted in the media or even reported on? I haven't even heard anyone talk about the 700 club... maybe ever? I only know it from flipping through channels late at night when I was a young child. Maybe others hear about it all the time?

[jonesthecurl]

I tend to hear about it when the main guy says =yet another outrageous thing. And sometimes I used to see the last coupla minutes because it was on just before "Whose line is it anyway".