You can't read very well you stupid fucking moron. There are federal death benefits involved for the family members. Nowhere did I say it was for the person incarcerated and facing execution. I said if the prisoner was MARRIED or has minor children, a federal judge can get involved because federal benefits ARE involved.
Here is a link.
You are such a fucking asshole. Real tough hiding behind a keyboard are you. I bet you are a real wimp in person.
You are the fucking idiot! Since you can't think it through for yourself, I will give you the first example. Remember, I said a federal judge COULD/SHOULD be able to stop a state execution based on federal benefits. If a person is executed and he OR she is married, there are federal death benefits involved.
You really could not think this one out? You are not too fucking bright now are you. Do I have to go through the rest of the list for you also? Do you get the picture now.
Go ahead and come up with some lame ass excuse like it isn't that much money or some other crap. Your original post only mentioned federal benefits. I just gave you one.
Sorry, but you are wrong about public schools and prayer. He did not make up the issue. Do you know your history? I don't think you have a clue. Here is a link for you to learn.
Let me guess.I bet you will come up with 10,000 reasons why the article is wrong other than what he wrote.
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0098Banonschoolprayer.html
Also, a lot of gays are to Christians as the KKK is to minorities. They just don't get the negative press that the KKK gets. The LGBT leadership is very anti Christian and trying to bring it down one piece at a time.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/
You have not thought any of these through. The list isn't silly at all. Every one of those I listed has/can have federal benefits involved. You made the case that gay marriage should be decided by federal judges because federal benefits are involved. You think you are the smartest person on this site, so use your brain a little harder and figure out why I made these specific situations.
This is such a weak and pathetic argument unless of course you are a big federal government, nanny state supporter. Or should I go all the way and say you favor a police state since you despise religion like Stalin and the Castro boys.
So, according to your logic here involving federal benefits, you would then support a lowly federal judge who could/should be able to do the following.
1 stop state executions
2 stop divorces
3 end right to work laws in states
4 not allow a company to move from state to state
5 stop a state from raising the minimum wage beyond that of the federal level
6 not allow states to set their own speed limits on interstates
7 release state prisoners
I could go on and on with more examples. Your post reveals all we need to know about your positions. The federal government has the right to interfere in anything it chooses.
Here is an interesting article if you care to read it.
That case was decided wrongly. Just because 9 people think one way does not make it right. Gay marriage is a states rights issue. You just love to use the 14th amendment for whatever you like. I have a tremendous amount of legal understanding on issues. It is you that doesn't understand the Constitution. If states want to not allow interracial marriages, that is their choice also. If someone doesn't like it, move to another state where the laws fit their beliefs and values.
If the 14th amendment was so important, it would have been included in the original Bill of Rights. The founding fathers did include states rights so the federal government would not have too much power. You have serious mental issues you need to deal with. What happened to you as a little kid that made you so insecure and hostile to people who disagree with you. I feel sorry for anyone who has to be around you on a daily basis. Grow up.
That is your opinion pal. Millions of people do not believe a person's constitutional rights will be violated by not allowing same sex couples to marry. Where do you get off thinking your position is what is best for all 50 states. That is very arrogant of you.
The 14th amendment doesn't say anything about marriage. You liberals like to make the 14th amendment anything you please.
The 10th amendment specifically allows states to make their own rules when it is not a federal law or mentioned in the constitution. Federal judges should have no say in state matters when it does not contradict federal law or is clearly stated in the constitution. Just how much do you hate the 10th amendment? I am willing to bet you would like to see it get eliminated.
Pass a federal law allowing any two people to marry, including brother/sister. I have no problem if the people of a particular state pass a law allowing gay marriage. If that is what they want then good for them.
Yes I did. Scotus was not ready to take ANY gay marriage cases at the time. Now they are. I believe you purposely used the word recognize instead of legal to influence the uninformed that 37 states passed gay marriage laws. You are not a dumb person, you knew how that would sound by using recognize. I called you out on it and you conceded it meant legal. Which I agree with you.
Say what you want, but gay marriage is now a political issue since we are dealing with state laws, the federal government, and every level of the court system. Recognition means acceptance. At least people who are reading this debate now know that individual states do not recognize, "accept," gay marriage like you had hoped they would.
This is my last post on this subject. I got you to use the word legal. So we have no more disagreement.
Alabama is not violating any Supreme Court motion, yet. They have not ruled on it. Gay marriage is a states right until a federal law is passed or the Supreme Court rules it a federal right. Neither has happened yet. When a judge makes a ruling and the state APPEALS that ruling, they are not recognizing it. Therefore, Alabama does not recognize gay marriage. Are you saying when a defendant appeals a verdict he recognizes it? No he does not.
One more thing. Why did you use the word recognize? That means to know or identify. Poor choice of words. In terms of politics, recognize means to accept. Here are a couple of examples.
The USA recognizes the state of Taiwan.
The USA recognizes the right of Israel to exist.
Both mean to accept. Saying Alabama recognizes gay marriage is wrong. The state of Alabama does not accept gay marriage.
Yes they do get overruled. And sometimes they win on appeal. Til the Supreme Court rules on this appeal by the state show me the federal law that forces a state to accept gay marriage. Show me a Supreme Court ruling that forces gay marriage on to a state.
No those states have not recognized it. Take Alabama, nowhere in their state laws OR constitution does it recognize gay marriage. In fact, it openly is against it. When the Supreme court makes it a constitutional right, then it becomes the law of the land. Until then, it is one or so judges who forced it upon them.
Ask the Alabama legislative branch if it was forced upon them. Ask them if they recognize it.
I do think it will go that way in the Supreme Court. But it may not be inevitable. Further, your wording is misleading. To someone who doesn't have a clue on gay marriage, you make it out to be that 37 states have passed gay marriage or support it. The reality is only 12 states believe in gay marriage. The other 25 states had it forced upon them by federal judges. So only a minority of states believe in gay marriage. If each state were to get one vote only, it would be a landslide against gay marriage.
Technically you are correct, but I could site different issues that make it out to be any way I want it to.
I agree completely. The woman has a choice if she does not want to go into financial ruin but the father doesn't. That is a double standard if I ever saw one. This is one reason why I don't mind at all that men make more money than women in the same job. It helps even out the playing field.
No animal has a conscience besides humans. That is what separates us from all other living beings. Since I have no doubt about an afterlife I guess you are safe.
You are looking at this all wrong. Put a hundred kids on a stranded island with no knowledge of God or right or wrong with limited resources with no hope of ever getting off. You better believe they would start killing each other.
An atheist is nothing more than a bunch of carbon based cells no different than a lion or a monkey. With no belief in an after life, (God) why would they not be okay with murder. No other animal is concerned with killing, why would a human with nothing to look forward to after death.
Now, if you say it is because we have a conscience, why do we. It should seem obvious that God gave it to us to know right from wrong.
And yes, if I was an atheist I would kill someone if they had something I wanted and I knew I could get away with it. The person is nothing more than any other animal.
Wow, look at this girl. If I saw her I would not believe her age.
The Republicans should nominate a conservative who isn't far to the right. Someone who doesn't have a lot of baggage. I think Scott Walker and Marco Rubio would make a great team.
There would be a minority on the ticket but better yet the Democrats can't claim "another rich white guy" like they did with McCain and Romney.
Iraq was fairly stable under Saddam. Then it went through years of turmoil due to Hussein being ousted. Then Obama declares it a success not so long ago. It has since went back down hill under Obama. Who is to blame when our president says everything is well and dandy and we don't need to keep any troops behind.
Don't get me wrong, I had no problem pulling the troops out, but what has happened since is no surprise. Obama was slow in acting . ISIS took over numerous towns and large sections of land before Obama started to strike back with the drones.
At the end of the day, all these Middle East countries will be begging us to intervene militarily if they are on the brink of falling. I don't blame them. The leaders want to stay in power as long as possible, even if that means we put troops on the ground.
Lastly, most of the troops these Middle East nations have can't fight their way out of a paper bag in conventional warfare. They are only good at guerrilla warfare.
I don't think most people realize just what a mess it is over there. Iran, our thorn in our side, is supplying Hezbollah and the Syrian government with weapons to fight both the moderate rebels and ISIS. We in turn, are bombing ISIS and supplying the moderate rebels with arms to overthrow the Syrian government. But we can't really allow Assad's government to fall since the moderate rebels aren't strong enough to withstand ISIS.
If Syria's government is toppled, I predict we will have another Somalia on our hands. No central government and numerous factions all fighting each other for control.
Then you come to Obama. He has ruled out any military action on the ground. I don't think he has a clue what to do other than launch drone strikes. He didn't take ISIS seriously and I wonder if he does today.
He can't convince Turkey to join in because Turkey hates the Kurds, who are fighting ISIS. Obama needs to be more forceful are this is going to turn into a bigger quagmire than it is now.
How far does Obama go to keep Iraq's government from falling. If that happens Obama is to take all the blame, period. I can also see Afghanistan crumbling to the ground.
If Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan all tumble, we are looking at chaos, possibly for decades if Obama doesn't act decisively.
