Go Back   Fratching! > General > Church and State

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #61  
Old 09-15-2015, 06:41 PM
s_stabeler s_stabeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kheldarson View Post
She's trying to say it does, but it's been replaced by a note about federal mandate, which is all her office stands for anyway. So I really doubt it will. They've been federally recognized.
to be fair, I'm not sure Davis was saying they weren't legally valid. IIRC, what she took umbridge at was the licenses being issued in the name of the county clerk- her. (basically, her argument was that having someone else sign the licenses on her behalf would still be considered a sin, so wasn't really an accommodation, since it didn't resolve the actual issue.) to be honest, as long as the altered licenses are valid, that part doesn't bother me. ( as long as the licenses are valid, you could issue them in the name of mickey mouse, and I doubt anyone would care much)
Reply With Quote

  #62  
Old 09-15-2015, 11:48 PM
Gravekeeper Gravekeeper is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,853
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by s_stabeler View Post
to be fair, I'm not sure Davis was saying they weren't legally valid. IIRC, what she took umbridge at was the licenses being issued in the name of the county clerk- her.
No, she specifically said she did not think they are valid because they do not carry her name, signature or authorization.

You're giving her too much credit. She is a terrible human being, remember. ;p
Reply With Quote

  #63  
Old 09-16-2015, 12:17 AM
s_stabeler s_stabeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,157
Default

ah. in which case, yep, she's trying to pull a fast one again. To be honest, the sooner she can be fired, the better.
Reply With Quote

  #64  
Old 09-16-2015, 12:09 PM
dendawg dendawg is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 186
Default

Somebody needs to shake this, um, "lady" while screaming "WHAT PART OF 'SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE' DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND???"
Reply With Quote

  #65  
Old 09-16-2015, 01:18 PM
Kheldarson Kheldarson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,513
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dendawg View Post
Somebody needs to shake this, um, "lady" while screaming "WHAT PART OF 'SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE' DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND???"
Separation >.<
__________________
I has a blog!
Reply With Quote

  #66  
Old 09-17-2015, 12:44 AM
Talon's Avatar
Talon Talon is offline
Atheist
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 353
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dendawg View Post
Somebody needs to shake this, um, "lady" while screaming "WHAT PART OF 'SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE' DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND???"
I read that in Samuel Jackson's voice

Reply With Quote

  #67  
Old 09-17-2015, 02:01 AM
Kheldarson Kheldarson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,513
Default

So apparently her being jailed is worse than a teenage boy being arrested for bringing a clock to school: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0fde8b0cceae2

__________________
I has a blog!
Reply With Quote

  #68  
Old 09-17-2015, 09:04 AM
Racket_Man's Avatar
Racket_Man Racket_Man is offline
stressed broke pizza guy
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,211
Default

Mike Huckabee is at it again. "JUST ignore the Supream Court of the US".



http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...gYP?li=BBieYpp
__________________
I'm lost without a paddle and I'm headed up sh*t creek.

I got one foot on a banana peel and the other in the Twilight Zone.
The Fools - Life Sucks Then You Die
Reply With Quote

  #69  
Old 09-17-2015, 12:44 PM
s_stabeler s_stabeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,157
Default

Mike Huckabee should perhaps have actually read the Supreme Court opinion before shooting his mouth off- the Supreme Court DID NOT introduce a NEW right for gay people to get married. what the Supreme Court ruled was that gay people come under the Equal protection clause of the constitution- thus, they have technically ALWAYS had the right. In fact, what the Supreme Court was ding in this case is they were technically acting as a check on the executive branch. If the Supreme Court can't say "look, according to the Constitution, you are wrong" to the executive branch, you have broken the checks and balances established in the constitution.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 06:39 AM.


vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.