Pope Francis sides with county clerks who refuse to issue gay marriage licenses - Polidicks

[QUOTE=catchall;48797834]does this legalist philosophy of yours apply to enforcing federal immigration law in sanctuary cities or [editline]30th September 2015[/editline] what[/QUOTE] What's not to understand? He said that legally, there's no right to refuse to do your job. The moral analysis is entirely separate.

[QUOTE=Explosions;48797965]What's not to understand? He said that legally, there's no right to refuse to do your job. The moral analysis is entirely separate.[/QUOTE] sometimes people are contradictory if you show the same argument but in a different context

[QUOTE=catchall;48797995]sometimes people are contradictory if you show the same argument but in a different context[/QUOTE] I have not been, however.

[quote]lso argue that it was the Supreme Court who had truly failed to uphold the duties of their office, as it would be my firmly held belief that such a ruling would be in complete opposition to the spirit and intentions of the Constitution, which is what the Supreme Court ultimately exists to uphold and protect. [/quote] can you expand more on this because i think it is quite silly

[QUOTE=vrej;48796433]This right here is what I have been trying to say! Thank you![/QUOTE] Please enlighten me with what special privileges I have for being gay.

[QUOTE=ClauAmericano;48786414]I just hope people don't take the fact he doesn't support gay marriage as a reason to dislike him. I understand how you feel but literally every Pope HAS to say they don't agree with it, if he even showed the smallest sign of support he'd get neglected to the Moon.[/QUOTE] that's exactly why a pope is inherently unlikeable by forward-thiking people. Why should anybody in their right mind support and like the leader of a bronze age cult?

[QUOTE=catchall;48798096]can you expand more on this because i think it is quite silly[/QUOTE] What is confusing or silly about it? The Supreme Court exists to uphold the spirit of the constitution through the application of constitutional law to cases brought to their attention. Essentially, they determine whether or not particular actions or pieces of legislation committed by the other branches and departments of government are constitutionally permissible. They act as the final word on that subject in the United States. Had they ruled that it was constitutionally permissible for state governments to persecute homosexuals by refusing them equal access to the legal, financial, and personal rights and privileges that heterosexuals enjoy on the basis of their sexual identity, then I would have been outraged on the grounds that it would be a gross miscarriage of constitutional justice. The court would have failed outright in its defined purpose to protect and uphold the spirit of the constitution by officially declaring in favor of persecution and oppression of minorities. That's completely antithetical to the core values that the US were supposedly founded on.

core values like men marrying men, okay lol [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting or just dumb" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=catchall;48801917]core values like men marrying men, okay lol[/QUOTE] You're either a drooling idiot or you're being deliberately obtuse. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight] [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Last warning was two bans ago. Sayonara." - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

like, what do you think james madison would say if I went back in time and told him that in 2015 the supreme court over-ruled states that wanted to keep marriage between men and women (several of which had had plebiscites that explicitly rejected the whole gay marriage idea). i don't know about you, but i think he'd do a few more drafts to the constitution to prevent this kind of perverse scenario (or give up the whole thing as a bad job) [editline]1st October 2015[/editline] and really, "persecution" for not letting them get married? what kind of clown world do you live in

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;48799992]Had they ruled that it was constitutionally permissible for state governments to persecute homosexuals by refusing them equal access to the legal, financial, and personal rights and privileges that heterosexuals enjoy on the basis of their sexual identity, then I would have been outraged on the grounds that it would be a gross miscarriage of constitutional justice. The court would have failed outright in its defined purpose to protect and uphold the spirit of the constitution by officially declaring in favor of persecution and oppression of minorities. That's completely antithetical to the core values that the US were supposedly founded on.[/QUOTE] Well actually I don't see how it was antithetical to the core values the US was founded on. The point of the supreme court is that it makes rulings applicable to the time it is in, and the basis for the present ruling was on a constitutional amendment which didn't exist until nearly a century after the United States had been founded. Indeed, the supreme court had made prior rulings that gay marriage was not protected by the constitution in 1970 with Baker v. Nelson. It was only recently that with the rapid development of a social movement it was overturned due to increasing popular demand within society. Assuming the US Supreme court is still functioning in a few centuries, it might be very well possible it could overturn Obergefell v. Hodges when society changes, rather than making an appeal to the original core values that the US was founded on (which was hardly progressive by any means).

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48802350]Well actually I don't see how it was antithetical to the core values the US was founded on. The point of the supreme court is that it makes rulings applicable to the time it is in, and the basis for the present ruling was on a constitutional amendment which didn't exist until nearly a century after the United States had been founded. Indeed, the supreme court had made prior rulings that gay marriage was not protected by the constitution in 1970 with Baker v. Nelson. It was only recently that with the rapid development of a social movement it was overturned due to increasing popular demand within society. Assuming the US Supreme court is still functioning in a few centuries, it might be very well possible it could overturn Obergefell v. Hodges when society changes, rather than making an appeal to the original core values that the US was founded on (which was hardly progressive by any means).[/QUOTE] That's a fair point. It is perhaps more accurate to say that the Supreme Court exists to adapt the constitution to modern times rather than the other way around.

[QUOTE=FinalHunter;48786399]Don't know why gays deserve all these special privileges and ordinary people don't.[/QUOTE] What the fuck am I reading?

[QUOTE=Moustacheman;48803580]What the fuck am I reading?[/QUOTE] The worst attempt at veiling homophobia ever.

If straight people want the "special privilege" of having to fight against thousands of years of oppression, I could see if we can't get started on the paperwork tonight.

So the Pope didn't really meet with her as such. She was invited, by someone with whom the Vatican is not too happy with I'm sure, to be in the group of people giving him a send off. Whoever did this really did make him look bad for a time, even to the point where they felt they had to explain who the Pope met with and how. Who ever is manipulating all this has some good connections if they can pull enough strings to game the Pope,

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;48813742]So the Pope didn't really meet with her as such. She was invited, by someone with whom the Vatican is not too happy with I'm sure, to be in the group of people giving him a send off. Whoever did this really did make him look bad for a time, even to the point where they felt they had to explain who the Pope met with and how. Who ever is manipulating all this has some good connections if they can pull enough strings to game the Pope,[/QUOTE] Ya apparently she grossly exaggerated the story, the pope did however have a long meeting with a gay couple whom he knew personally, and that lasted several hours