To hell with these Religious blowhards
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-09-2015, 07:29 AM (This post was last modified: 03-09-2015 07:43 AM by TheBeardedDude.)
To hell with these Religious blowhards
Ever since the ruling by the Supreme Court that effectively legalized gay marriage, I have wondered when (not if) I would wake up to a headline like this. It sure didn't take very long.

I just realized I didn't really summarize the article in any way. A Tennessee judge refuses to allow a couple to divorce, citing the gay marriage ruling. Jackass Dodgy

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local...ia/323201/

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-09-2015, 08:05 AM
RE: To hell with these Religious blowhards
FacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalm

(22-08-2015 07:30 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It is by will alone I set my brows in motion it is by the conditioner of avocado that the brows acquire volume the skin acquires spots the spots become a warning. It is by will alone I set my brows in motion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Octapulse's post
03-09-2015, 08:07 AM (This post was last modified: 03-09-2015 08:12 AM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: To hell with these Religious blowhards
(03-09-2015 07:29 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Ever since the ruling by the Supreme Court that effectively legalized gay marriage, I have wondered when (not if) I would wake up to a headline like this. It sure didn't take very long.

I just realized I didn't really summarize the article in any way. A Tennessee judge refuses to allow a couple to divorce, citing the gay marriage ruling. Jackass Dodgy

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local...ia/323201/

This judge is an asshole. In no way did the SCotUS ruling say that states cannot determine what does and does not constitute marriage; it says that gender is not a legal basis for restricting a person's rights to access what the state defines. It makes no more sense to say that the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967 restricted a state's ability to define marriage, when the Supreme Court found that race was not a legitimate basis for restricting access to the institution (or, more accurately, that both gender and race are classes that are protected against discrimination) in regards to access to the state-defined marriage process.

So either the judge has no concept of how federalism works, what the "protected classes" ruling means in any case ever (and there are hundreds of such Equal Protection cases, not just on civil rights issues), and doesn't understand that even if the feds did say that a state cannot determine what a marriage is (it doesn't say that) it still doesn't mean that the states would be restricted from determining how to dissolve a marriage contract under law... or he's an asshole.

But it's okay, because Jesus.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
03-09-2015, 08:08 AM
RE: To hell with these Religious blowhards
(03-09-2015 08:07 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(03-09-2015 07:29 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Ever since the ruling by the Supreme Court that effectively legalized gay marriage, I have wondered when (not if) I would wake up to a headline like this. It sure didn't take very long.

I just realized I didn't really summarize the article in any way. A Tennessee judge refuses to allow a couple to divorce, citing the gay marriage ruling. Jackass Dodgy

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local...ia/323201/

This judge is an asshole. In no way did the SCotUS ruling say that states cannot determine what does and does not constitute marriage; it says that gender is not a legal basis for restricting a person's rights to access what the state defines. It makes no more sense to say that the Loving v. Virginia case in 1967 restricted a state's ability to define marriage, when the Supreme Court found that race was not a legitimate basis for restricting access to the institution (or, more accurately, that both gender and race are classes that are protected against discrimination, in regards to access to the state-defined marriage process.

So either the judge has no concept of how federalism works, what the "protected classes" ruling means in any case ever (and there are hundreds of such Equal Protection cases, not just on civil rights issues), and doesn't understand that even if the feds did say that a state cannot determine what a marriage is (it doesn't say that) it still doesn't mean that the states would be restricted from determining how to dissolve a marriage contract under law... or he's an asshole.

But it's okay, because Jesus.

It is funny how asshole's tend to be so devout. Consider

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
03-09-2015, 09:23 AM
RE: To hell with these Religious blowhards
Meh. The SCOTUS decision is like shining a light on the cockroaches. Sucks that real lives are impacted for the sake of posturing, but that's the American way.

Quote:Jim Blumstein, a professor of constitutional law at Vanderbilt University, said the Supreme Court decision does not appear to be the main determinant behind Atherton's dismissal; he believes Atherton is expressing his political disagreement with the ruling.

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
03-09-2015, 05:49 PM
RE: To hell with these Religious blowhards
They just jailed that bitch in Kentucky!!!

le article

[Image: 635769028507694122-AP-Gay-Marriage-Kentucky.jpg]

Oh happy day! Laugh out load

(22-08-2015 07:30 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It is by will alone I set my brows in motion it is by the conditioner of avocado that the brows acquire volume the skin acquires spots the spots become a warning. It is by will alone I set my brows in motion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Octapulse's post
03-09-2015, 10:25 PM
RE: To hell with these Religious blowhards
Bring on the Martyr Complex moaning!

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 02:55 AM
RE: To hell with these Religious blowhards
Why the fuck do you need someone to determine if you can get divorced or not?
Shouldn't it just be if at least one person wants it than you sign the papers and get divorced.
It's not a typical contract between two parties. Hell, it's called a marriage "licence" not a marriage "contract".

The only time it should ever go to court is when there are disputes over who gets what and child custody disputes.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
04-09-2015, 03:44 AM
RE: To hell with these Religious blowhards
This guy's a dick. I hope he can be jailed for failing to do his job too. If you don't like following the law, don't be a fucking judge Dodgy

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2015, 04:05 AM
RE: To hell with these Religious blowhards
It is implied that this fucking asshole is no different than the KY bitch. Both are posturing their belief system in attempt to cock block the law.

Why are our tax dollars funding these people?

My solution, albeit harsh:
People with fundamental religious belief should not be allowed to hold public office or any position funded by tax payer dollars. This includes military, legislative, human services, health/hospitals, corrections, judicial, et cetera.

My reasoning: it's clear that some people holding religious beliefs can not separate those beliefs from their job therefore impeding the ability to reason properly in their day-to-day functions. Until we have a means of separating the sheep from the goats, maybe none should be allowed in.

....but it's early and I haven't had my coffee yet so my own rationale may be impeded right now. Evil_monster

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Tonechaser77's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: