Quote of the Day
Ask not what your country can do for you,
but what you can do for your country.
John F. Kennedy
Tweet of the Day
@realDonaldTrump's schoolboy taunts on Carly Fiorina's looks are nonchivalrous, unprofessional and unacceptable. http://t.co/fD1pcqntRZ
— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) September 11, 2015
Image of the Day
ATTENTION: I've embedded a couple of Bobby Jindal campaign mock videos of Trump after my usual post-ending musical video segment. (The reason for doing so is that I've often found for non-Youtube videos, the injection of relevant html code often skews the formatting of the remainder of the post.)
Restrictions on Political Speech
College Football: Amateur or Pro?
Facebook Corner
(earlier Libertarian Catholic post: my original response immediately follows)
There's no such thing as a positive (State-conferred vs. natural/negative) right.
The OP is not a libertarian. Libertarians don't believe in legally-conferred rights, licenses, etc.; we don't think the state confers any legitimacy to marriage: for us Catholics, it's a sacrament. None of the states whose policies were overturned by Obergefell or earlier rulings banned gay relationships, commitments and contracts, i.e., natural/negative rights.
What the State gives, the State can take away. Let me pose a relevant speculation. The government decides that the Catholic Church discriminates, say, for not ordaining openly gay or female priests and use the public accommodation of churches argument to sanction the Church, e.g., by levying taxes or refusing to recognize Catholic marriages.
We're not talking about church marriage here. We're talking about a legal contract between two consenting adults. What Kim's religion or the Church says about it is irrelevant. The slippery slope argument is just a weak one. If you think the government shouldn't allow a legal civil marriage between two adults because Jesus doesn't approve, well I'm sorry but you're not a libertarian.
No, the troll is definitely wrong. (He's a left-fascist, not a libertarian.) Say, for example, you have a degree from a diploma mill. The State decides you don't meet the qualifications to be a licensed professional. You simply don't meet the criteria. Now in the real world you may be very competitive, despite your diploma mill past. You simply don't have the State's blessing. It "discriminates" all the time; the upper class, for example, is not eligible for welfare benefits.
Marriage has always been a heterosexual concept period; it's not like a Jim Crow law that arose from anger over the Civil War. and Reconstruction. The Obergefell did not have the judicial mandate of a unanimous decision like Brown v. Board of Education--it was decided by a single judicial whore.
But, and the troll hasn't grasped this point, no one was prohibiting gays from relationships, entering into contracts for things like inheritance, hospital visitation rights, etc. Gay relationships have existed for thousands of years without compromising or co opting the institution of marriage. Let's not pretend this mutated concept of politically correct State "marriage" is real, except in the eyes of government whores. I didn't apply to an Ivy League school, but if I hadn't been accepted, it didn't mean my education was over--it was just different. Gays wanted, I think, two things: (1) the bag of State-conferred goodies for married people and (2) public approval of their relationships. By using the courts, the gays have utterly failed the second objective. They were better off persuading each state. By the way, I lived in Maryland when it was one of the first 2 states to narrowly win a state ballot measure. Traditionalists were heavily outspent--and the most heavily run spot I saw didn't even mention gays--it was a black preacher who claimed the position was protecting his religious liberty not to perform a ceremony--a liberty he already had,
Now as for the conscience thing raised by LC: first of all, it's far-fetched to say signing off on paperwork for a license or certificate is a matter of conscience. Second, Kentucky law allows for clerks or their deputies to sign off. At least 5 of 6 clerks were willing to sign off on gay "marriage" paperwork; the problem was Davis was blocking them. She could have simply deferred to a willing deputy, which would have been an acceptable accommodation. In fact, the state AG said he was waiving at this time prosecuting Davis because the federal judge is handling it, but to avoid the appearance of discrimination, she refused to do marriage paperwork across the board--including straights. This is misconduct. Now Davis ran afoul of the 14th Amendment since Obergefell wrongly decided that marriage was a "fundamental" right. . I think Davis could find herself charged with a couple of federal counts if she continues to obstruct things.
Now I agree jail is harsh and rather counterproductive---it actually won her martyr status. I think (1) he wanted to point out that gays were going to be processed in the county, with or without her, and he'll put her in jail again if she tries to stop the deputy clerks, and (2) he wanted to set an example.
Kim Davis is trying to have her cake and eat it too. If she's really offended by doing her job, she should step aside. To me, it's a rule of law issue. It's not up to her who gets to marry.
Regardless of what the benefits are, the state must offer them equally to all, without discriminating on a basis of race, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation.
Once again, the troll is wrong--he's substituting political correctness for equal protection--basically the bastardized extensions to Footnote 4, which gave the majoritarians wide discretion over individual rights except for some special exceptions. Footnote 4 is by concept discriminatory, since it decides which group gets specialized consideration. So you were exactly spot on with why not income level...
Once again, I argue that there's no such thing as positive rights, including a so-called right to marry. Equal protection would involve things like uneven, arbitrary application of the law against negative rights.
Great points Ronald, but I would add that there were (are still) laws on the books criminalizing sodomy.
From what I understand, the situation is more nuanced. For example, in Louisiana the law is used to prosecute relevant non consensual sexual assaults (vs. a comprehensive sexual assault law). Obviously Louisiana needs to reform its sexual assault laws. I do agree that prosecution of consensual sexual activities violates a right of privacy under the fourth and/or ninth amendments--and the laws should never have existed (except for rape).
(a different thread)
So, do you think that if Kim Davis kept her job and issued gay marriage licenses, that she would not be in cooperation with evil?
In a broader spectrum, do you think that all government employees are required to act against their conscience if the job description says to? Wouldn't this set up a situation in which there could be no people of good conscience in the executive branch of government?
All she's doing is verifying that State requirements for State "marriage" have been verified. Unlike, say, a justice of the peace, she's not actually involved in gay "marriage". If she has an issue she should resign. State marriage is little more than entitlement of certain tax breaks and other benefits; I don't believe government should be subsidizing relationships, period.
I think there are nuances and locus of control. Take, for instance, the My Lai massacre was clearly more evil, murdering unarmed civilians. "Lieutenant Calley testified that he heard the shooting and arrived on the scene. He observed his men firing into a ditch with Vietnamese people inside and he then started shooting himself, with an M16, from a distance of 5 feet.." Now were the people who processed Calley into the military or trained him also responsible? No.
What you are discussing is insubordination, misconduct, a breach of contract. You may disagree with a policy, but that doesn't constitute a matter of conscience. But in the scenario you provided of the government being unable to staff itself, what a wonderful thing.to contemplate....
Does it not matter that the contract was altered after the clerk was elected and took office?
No, the contract calls for her to process qualified candidates; Laws change all the time. Kim Davis took office this past January. By October 2014, SCOTUS had refused to hear appeals from 5 traditional marriage states whose laws were overturned by lower courts; the writing was on the wall. She had to know it was just a matter of time before Kentucky's was overturned.
(National Review). This will either make you really angry or really happy (depending where you stand).
If there was a picture of a RINO, it would feature Donald "Four Bankruptcies" Trump--the most personally obnoxious son of a bitch ever to run for President in my lifetime. It's not just that he's economically illiterate--he's an ill-tempered, unqualified, incompetent, inexperienced, self-serving, unprincipled right-fascist demagogue. How gullible and ignorant do you have to be to be a Trump cultist--he's a corrupt crony capitalist who had a woman's property condemned to make way for limousine parking for one of his hotels. What will make America great is kicking this wannabe President Asshole out of the race.
Political Humor
The last minute or so of the clip Jeb Bush reads a "Trump response" off the teleprompter to the Iran nuclear deal..
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Chip Bok via Townhall |
Lionel Richie, "Truly". His first #1 solo hit and Richie starts a 5-year streak where every single goes Top 10, including 3 more #1's; I believe that my first brother and his wife chose to feature this song at their wedding.
Jindal Posts Two Mock Videos on Trump
Donald Trump is “winning.”
Posted by Bobby Jindal on Wednesday, September 9, 2015
Classic narcissist.
Posted by Bobby Jindal on Thursday, September 10, 2015
