Allah:
Via the Free Beacon, it’s a fair question. Even some reporters from outside conservative media ended up wondering yesterday why Clinton rhetorical stink bomb didn’t send more people running for cover.
I'm a little surprised that Clinton comparing GOP candidates to "terrorists" today isn't getting more attention.
— Ryan Lizza (@RyanLizza) August 27, 2015
@MeghanMcCain still amazed people aren't making a bigger deal out of it
— Olivia Nuzzi (@Olivianuzzi) August 28, 2015
The simplest explanation is undoubtedly the correct one: When you’re a Democrat and a woman who also happens to represent the best chance of abortion warriors to control the White House for four more years, you simply can’t be too nasty to social conservatives on matters of “choice.” She could run ads photoshopping Marco Rubio into one of those ISIS death-porn videos and the most you’d get out of the wider media is, “Some might consider that offensive.” Interestingly, though, even in conservative media, this hasn’t registered as a truly major story. Our own post on it yesterday drew far fewer comments than the average post on Trump does. Why is that? I think we may have we reached a point where this sort of reeking sleaze is so par for the course in Democratic “war on women” rhetoric that even Republicans don’t get too exercised about it. It’s just something Democrats say, like how every Republican policy, foreign and domestic, can best be understood as part of an unspoken racist plot. It’s a pretty sweet deal to be able to casually compare your opponents to ISIS and have virtually no one, many of those same opponents included, bat an eye.
If we’re going to insist on making terrorist comparisons, though, Kevin Williamson has a question: Isn’t the outfit that’s actually beheading people a better analog to ISIS?
@retire05:
I keep accepting whatever definition of pedophilia y’all want me to use.
You keep offering definitions of pedophilia that split hairs over the difference between “love” and “desire,” but neither of those conditions are ever prohibited by law.
So now I have asked you to show me where sexually DESIRING children is against the law.
You have failed to do that.
I ask you again:
Show me a law IN ANY STATE that forbids DESIRING ANYTHING, much less desiring to have sex with children.
Now before you burn your witch’s broom in protest, note that I am not defending pedophiles, and that I am not objecting to any laws that forbid adults from having sex with minors… or children. States have the right to Enact such laws. However, NO states have ever ventured successfully into the realm of mind-control, and legislating “desire” would do just that.
I suspect that this is just another instance of your sloppy use of the language. For someone who makes such a fuss over the meanings of words, your careless use of them makes no sense at all.
@George Wells:
Please provide a link to where you ask me, specifically, that question.
So I failed to answer a question that I believe you never asked me, specifically?
But here is my answer: sexually desiring children is NOT a crime. Acting on those desires IS. Just as those who desired to participate in sodomy were not committing a crime but those who actually participated in sodomy were committing a crime.
@George Wells:
No hair splitting involved. “Love” and “desire” are not one and the same. A rapist desires a woman he rapes. He does not love her.
If states have a 10th Amendment right to enact laws that forbid adults from having sex with minors, so too it should apply that states have a 10th Amendment right to pass laws regarding marriage since neither one is Constitutionally given to the federal government.
If you feel my reference to the definition of pedophilia is sloppy, take it up with WebMD, and Webster’s Dictionary, where I gleaned my definition.
@retire05: George said:
I’m surprised to read that George is now in favor of states being able to pass laws that control behavior of people. I thought that he was of the opinion that a state couldn’t prohibit people from committing sodomy, now he says they should be able to. Or is he saying it’s only for the right to make a law that ‘he agrees’ with? I suspect it is the latter.
@retire05 #53:
We are in agreement that pedophilia is not against the law. Good.
First, I did not evoke the 10th amendment, you did.
Second, the laws that forbid adults from having sex with children apply to ALL citizens, not just some of them, producing no conflict with the 14th amendment that guarantees equal protection under the law to all citizens.
In MY opinion, laws that forbade gay people from marrying each other did not apply to all citizens equally, as most citizens are not gay and are otherwise free to marry the persons that they are attracted to.
In MY opinion, such laws MAY have been in the purview of states’ rights, but they were CERTAINLY in conflict with the equal protection clause of the Constitution. In this matter, the Supreme Court, along with an overwhelming majority of Federal and Appellate Courts, AGREED WITH ME.
I can only conclude that you and wing-nuts like that jailed Kentucky clerk-of-the-court are still fighting this already lost battle because you have nothing better to do than waste your own time and breath APPEARING to be angry enough to prompt other like-minded wing-nuts to send money to your FUND-ME accounts. It’s already worked for bakers, florists and photographers, why not clerks and witches too?
Get over it.
Move on.
Repeating the same failed arguments over and over is a sign of dementia.
@Redteam #54:
States have the right to enact laws that do not infringe upon rights granted by the Constitution. Anti-sodomy laws and anti-same-sex-marriage laws both infringed upon the Constitution’s equal protection clause, and thus were found to the SCOTUS be unconstitutional. I agree with the majority of Supreme Court justices who so decided. Your opinion was the Court’s minority opinion, and is shared by only a minority of Americans, as well. In our system of government, that is more than enough to guarantee that YOUR opinion doesn’t become law, and that mine DOES.
Move on.
@George Wells:
There was no law written that forbade gay people from marrying each other. There were laws that prohibited men from marrying men and women from marrying women and it applied to all men and all women equally. there was no discrimination.
not true, they still were not free to marry within the same sex even if they weren’t gay. Attraction was not the determining factor.
Have you had it for a while?
I’ve seen no mention of anyone having a ‘FUND-ME’ account.
I don’t think that’s a true statement.
@George Wells:
Your opinion, as usual, is wrong. But feel free to link to any previous state marriage law that including attraction as a prerequisite for a marriage license.
The marriage laws were equal. They applied to everyone. You have never been able to show any state that had a marriage license where the question “Are you gay” was on the license application. But as with all things queer, the whole debate of legalizing sodomist relationships was, and continues to be, based on lies.
I suggest you follow your own advise. Nature’s system is not going to change because you’re queer and want it normalized.
@George Wells:
That’s not the way the system is supposed to work. The court is supposed to decide if there is a violation of the constitution. That’s the issue, not which side gets the most votes.
In the case of Kentucky, I’m not sure that the particular law that was in question is the law that was determined by the Supreme Court. The laws in a particular state have to be determined to be in violation. Just because a law in Georgia is unconstitutional does not make a law in another state equally illegal. Each person and each state is entitled to their day in court.
The same two clowns still making the same silly excuses for why their side of the marriage debate lost.
(Yawn)
@George Wells:
I wouldn’t swap the title of clown for your title.
@Redteam #61:
Why don’t you go ahead and explain why that KY clerk doesn’t belong in jail.
Explain why you can ignore laws and court decrees with impunity simply because your religious beliefs allow you to.
Explain why it’s a good idea to encourage people to justify anarchy in the name or religious freedom.
Explain why you favor religious tyranny over any other brand of oppression.
I’m a law-abiding citizen of the United States.
And you’re a clown who thinks he’s superior to that!
Ppppffffftttt!
@George Wells:
Well, maintaining the traditional definition of marriage applies to all citizens as well, unless you can name some that it misses.
Voters ALWAYS disagreed with you. But, hey, what’s a little violation of the will of the people between friends, right? Like with Obama, when people get the opportunity to vote, they should always vote in the way liberals want them to or the vote will simply be overturned by liberal judges.
Really? THAT’S your advice? Did gay leftists “get over it” when legal referendums showed them that the majority of people were against the violation of traditional marriage? Did you “get over it” and just settle on “civil union” or create some other clever euphemism for your unions (something the left is most adept at)? No, you kept finding ways to circumvent traditional marriage (henceforth known as “marriage”), undercut the process of voting and violate the will of the people that voted. So, since the approval by 5 people of gay “marriage” is tenuously based on stretching the English language to the ridiculous maximum, you can expect this to be overturned when adults the honor the Constitution are back in charge.
All things being equal, she belongs in jail along with all those other clerks that issued same-sex marriage licenses when that was illegal. Oh… wait. No one got sent to jail for standing by THAT conviction, did they? It’s only illegal NOT to be liberal.
@George Wells:
Explain what it’s a good idea to encourage people to justify anarchy in the name of being queer.
Explain why you can ignore laws and court decrees with impunity simply because your homosexual beliefs allow you to.
etc, etc…..
Isn’t it strange that the only side that’s correct is YOUR side? If you were religious instead of homosexual, then you would likely be for religious freedom, something we USED to be proud to say that we had in this country. Seems now, especially to homos that the only freedom worth having is for homosexuals to sodomize each other.
@Redteam:
George is of the opinion that Kim Davis belongs in jail because she refused to obey the law. That is extremely curious since one can safely assume that George, who claims to have been gay most of his life, refused to obey the laws on sodomy when they were in effect. Or is George now going to claim that he never participated in homosexual sex until the ruling on Lawrence vs. Texas?
George is one of these hypocrites who will shout “laws for thee, but not for me.”
@retire05: I agree Retire, apparently George has only been a law abiding citizen since Lawrence v Texas. I’m sure he felt it was okay to disobey those laws and go with his ‘beliefs’, but it’s not okay for Kim to disobey a law. Incidentally, technically Kim is not violating a law because she is an officer of the law in Kentucky where the state Constitution has not been officially changed yet. In fact, it seems as if that federal judge acted outside his authority. But I’m sure lawlessness is okay with George if it serves the homosexual agenda.
@Bill, #63:
I believe most state referendums on the issue have produced the opposite result.
I get so weary of the bullshit assertion that the marriage of gay people somehow diminishes the sanctity or inviolability of heterosexual marriage. Consider the rates of adultery and divorce among married heterosexuals. There’s a threat to traditional marriage. Heterosexuals violate the institution themselves on a regular basis.
Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis has been divorced 3 times. Who is she to be getting up on her high horse about the sanctity of traditional marriage?
This is one of those issues that I never cared much about one way or the other until the pseudo-Christian, holier-than-thou right-wing haters started coming out of the woodwork, demanding that other people be forced by the government to behave in the same frequently-screwed-up manner that they behave in themselves. Repeated heterosexual marriages, divorces and remarriages? OK! A bit of adultery around the points of transition? Jesus will give you a pass if you feel guilty as hell and get back with the program. But a committed, long-term gay relationship in the context of marriage? Hell fire and damnation! We’re under attack!
It’s absurd.
@Greg:
I think you should check again.
The “sanctity” of marriage is one issue, for sure, but the major problem I have is the determined effort to equate the two, i.e. to eliminate all differences between the traditional marriage (formally known as “marriage”) and gay unions. Despite how the members feel about each other, there is no equivocation; they are inherently and forevermore different as different can be.
Oh, it’s absurd alright. And you’re right there in the middle of it.
@Greg:
Really? Name the states that have held elections on legalizing gay marriage where it has passed?
Or are you referring to California’s Prop 8 supporting marriage between one man and one woman that was overturned by an unelected judge who failed to disclose his own conflict of interest in the case and did not recuse himself?
I agree with you that the left has done a bang up job of making marriage inconsequential. Considering that fact, you have to wonder why marriage between a man and woman is so inconsequential to the left, but sodomist relationships are important.
And Democrats violate the gun laws with regularity. Does that mean that you want to abolish all gun laws? Or do you think all those gang bangers who have illegal weapons vote Republican?
Seems to me you were the one who questioned my authority to say you will burn in Hell for your position on abortion. You deemed that judgmental. Now you are being judgmental of a person you do not know, have never spoken with. I would suspect it goes back to you not holding solid religious beliefs, accepting that God’s law trump’s man’s law.
But then, that’s the left’s forte; ignore the message by trying to kill the messenger.
I think gay people just want their committed relationships to be given the same respect under the law as those of other people. It doesn’t seem like such a big deal to afford them that and let it go. Holding somebody else down doesn’t elevate the people doing it. And there are far more serious matters to worry about.
@Bill #63:
Why do you keep forgetting the inconvenient truth that the voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington states VOTED in favor of same-sex marriage. Their referendums PASSED.
That isn’t “ALWAYS, is it?
Retire05 #69:
Maine, Maryland and Washington all passed gay marriage referendums held in 2012.
Guess you forgot.
@Greg:
You don’t gain respect by not giving it. You don’t gain respect by demonizing another’s religious faith, calling them bigots and homophobes (an inaccurate word if ever there was one) and slandering them or going after their jobs, their families, their businesses. You don’t gain respect by trying to destroy societal norms that have endured for millenniums.
Unfortunately, the gay lobby seems to think that respect is a one way street; they demand it but refuse to give it.
@Bill #68:
So sorry that you are having major problems with life.
Fortunately, you don’t get to have it your way all the time.
I’m thrilled that things don’t always stay the same.
I’m enjoying more than a bit of turn-around-is-fair-play these days.
I doubt that I’ll live to see the day when your dreams come true and gays are stripped of their equal rights.
All the same, I suggest that you hold your breath.
@retire05:
let me reitterate:
Maine, Maryland and Washington all passed gay marriage referendums held in 2012.
How many times are you going to resurrect this ridiculous request, as if the correct answer can possibly prove anything other than that you are sadly, pathetically and intentionally mistaken?
Is this the purpose you think Flopping Aces fulfills? That it gives you a public forum upon which to post misinformation so frequently that people will mistakenly assume that, having repeated yourself so very many times, you MUST be right? What a cynical fraud you are!
As compared to the [at least] 31 states that held referendums limiting marriage to one man, one woman.
And you think you’re changing the opinion of the nation?
Have a look at the list of state efforts to ban the legal recognition of same-sex unions that have been subsequently struck down. As you’ll see in the column on the right by running down the page, not one of them was found to be in compliance with U.S. Constitutional law.
@George Wells:
I see you added an addendum to your post (without showing it was an addendum). Never the less; more states voted to make marriage between one man/one woman that voted to legalize sodomist relationships. Odd you didn’t include that in your list of states that voted on the issue.
Perhaps you are looking in the mirror when you see a cynical fraud?
@Greg:
I saw your Wiki list long ago. But then, as a radical left winger, I’m sure you have no problem with our nation being ruled by judicial fiat instead of by the people, as was the original intent.
Judicial fiat has nothing to do with it. One of the constitutionally designated functions of our federal courts is to test the constitutionality of laws. State efforts to deprive a certain class of people of the same rights enjoyed by others didn’t pass muster.
You just don’t like what they’ve decided. Learn to live with it. I didn’t like the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission decision.
@Greg: Are you of the opinion that court rulings are always correct? Didn’t the courts rule many times in favor of the legality of slavery?
@Greg:
Name ONE state where it was illegal for a gay person to marry. Just ONE. Name one state that had laws against a gay person marrying under the same edicts as everyone else. Just ONE.
You can’t. Because there was no heterosexual litmus test on a marriage license. Many gays have married those of the opposite sex for numerous reasons.
And of course judicial fiat has everything to do with it. When a gay judge, who has a long term same-sex partner, and who has been openly an advocate for same sex marriage, is allowed to sit the bench, overrule the will of the people and not recuse himself due to a personal interest in the case, that’s judicial fiat. Actually, it is judicial malfeasance. You would be screaming to the roof tops if a judge sat on a case involving an oil company and after he ruled in favor of the oil company it was learned that he was a major stock holder in that company.
What you liberals can’t win through popular opinion, you will win by bastardizing the Constitution. That’s just the way you are.
@retire05:
Well, duh!! George is always looking in the mirror. me, me, me,
@retire05, #82:
I rather doubt that argument would hold up before the Supreme Court. The intention of each failed law was obvious. The effect each would have was equally obvious.
@Greg:
Oh, Greggie, you are sooooooo transparent. When you don’t have an answer, or the answer doesn’t comport with your line of thinking (if that is what you want to call it) you dodge the question.
No surprise. I have come to expect no less from you.
Maybe the states in question should elect legislators smart enough to write laws that are in compliance with the Constitution of the United States. Of course that wasn’t really their concern in this case. They were pandering to a local constituency who tend to be impressed by empty words and empty gestures. That’s how we get a U.S. congressional majority full of bombastic words and condemnations that accomplishes absolutely nothing when it comes to crafting useful legislation.
@Greg:
So, they didn’t allows all the enlightened liberals to vote? None of the gay supporters were allowed to vote?
No, what we see is that whenever a vote is expected to go a certain way (who imagined it would be defeated in California, of all places?) they are welcome. What do liberals have to lose? There’s always an activist, liberal judge or court somewhere to legislate from the bench and void the results of a referendum.
Liberals respect no laws and, to them, the only purpose for laws to exist is to impose them on others in order to further their unwanted agenda.
@Greg:
At least 31 states put the marriage issue on the ballot. Tradition marriage passed by large majorities in most of those states. That’s 62% of the states, Greggie Goebbels. 62% of American states said “no” to same sex marriage by ballot, not legislation.
Perhaps you’re having flash backs to the days when the team Pelosi/Reid were in charge and rammed down the throats of Americans things we, as a majority, did not want.
So while the pendulum has been swinging your way, it will not stop on your side. It will swing back with a vengeance.
Why on Earth are all of you still litigating this issue?
It is settled!
All 50 states now have same-sex marriage, as does the better half of the CIVILIZED world, and still most of you side with Uganda, Iran, North Korea and Russia on this issue – IN SPITE of the fact that the majority of Americans disagree with you.
You’re all pissing into the wind!
Why?
Aren’t you wondering why you can’t get the taste of defeat out of your mouths?
In your WILDEST dreams do you think that ANYONE can turn back the clock on marriage equality?
Do you really believe that the legal system could somehow undo a quarter-million same-sex marriages and all of the legal instruments that have been built upon the foundations of those marriages? Or that having already taken the steps that the courts did to facilitate the establishment of the legal right in the first place that they would change their leopard spots and kill their begotten?
Have heterosexuals STOPPED getting married?
Have they STOPPED having children?
There are issues that deserve your energy – this one does not.
@retire05, #88:
I guess then we can all thank them for putting the issue on their ballots, thereby forcing courts to scrutinize the proposals and settle the matter once and for all.
States cannot make laws that run contrary to U.S. constitutional law. The Supremacy Clause establishes the final level in disputed matters: the U.S. Constitution and federal statute.
@Greg:
I suggest you read the writings of the Founders who actually created the Constitution. The Judicial is not omnipotent. It has limits, and those limits, as in Dred Scott, have been overstepped by 9 unelected black robes who have, in fact, violated the actual Constitution they are sworn to uphold.
The pendulum will swing. One day the Court will be majority conservative and when it is, perhaps it will be wise again, filled with originalists who actually take their oath seriously and do not use their bench to promote a Marxist agenda.
The states should have refused to adhere to the SCOTUS’s unconstitutional ruling. The SCOTUS has no power of enforcement. And it would be interesting to see the DOJ try to haul 35-40 state governors into court for lack of compliance.
I wasn’t aware that same-sex marriage was part of the Marxist agenda.
@Greg:
There are lots of things you are not aware of.
@retire05 #91:
If you actually DID what you suggest, you’d have discovered that the founding fathers were NOT of one mind. Among them were devout Christians – like Adams – who would have been perfectly happy to have established a theocracy, and others – like Jefferson – who were much more reticent about the role of religion in government. There were Federalists, and there were those who hated Federalists.
The diversity of opinion found among the founding fathers IS expressed clearly in their individual private and public correspondences, but that information serves only to inform us that our Constitution was the product of compromise between men of diverse mind. It does NOT suggest that there was but one opinion on any specific issue. There were Founding Fathers who ardently opposed slavery and others who supported it. In the end, compromise on that issue was accepted in order to preserve the union because, for some states, outlawing slavery was a deal-breaker.
Every sentence, every phrase of the constitution was the product of dispute and negotiation, and in every instance, there were Founding Fathers who were pleased by the final product and those who were disappointed.
So what else DOES the Founding Fathers’ writings tell us? That our Constitution would have been significantly different had one of the more influential authors succumbed to pneumonia a few months prior to the Constitutional Convention? Probably. But do those scribbles really tell us what the authors of the Constitution collectively intended? NO. Each individual document revealed one opinion – that of its author. The Constitution was the product of ALL of all its authors. It HAS to be taken at face value.
@George Wells:
Oh, you mean like you leftists did after losing referendum after referendum after referendum after referendum?
@George Wells:
Where did I say differently? Are you back to making things up again and attributing to me things I did not say? Nasty habit that, George.
Um, theocracy. Now there’s a word that left wingers like yourself love to throw around, all the while not actually knowing the true meaning of theocracy. And please, don’t insult our intelligence by protesting how you are really a Republican by nature.
Italy was once a theocracy, as was Spain and, in some respects, England under Henry VIII, but never was that the design of any of the Founders.
Hate, another word liberals like to throw around. It has been so effective for you that you think it is now applicable to all situations. Except, it is not applicable in this instance.
And your point is? Or are you just rambling again?
.
Again, I said they were where?
Yet Rhode Island was the last holdout.
Uh? What are you babbling about? As with any document, there is generally but one author. The purpose being that all others agree with it in order to put that document into implementation. So your statement, as with most of what you say, is mind numbingly stupid. If the opinion of the document, i.e. the Constitution, was not agreed up it would not have been radified.
Precisely, although I doubt you realize what you have said. You are saying that the U.S. Constitution must be taken at face value, i.e. originalism. It means what it says, and says what it means and consequently, since the U.S. Constitution does NOT address a federal policy on marriage, that issue reverts back to the states, and the people. The liberal wing of the SCOTUS are not originalists, they are constructionists, who want to make the Constitution evolve according to their societal standards.
But I’m glad to see that you admit the Constitution should be exercised as written, not as Ginsburg, Kennedy, Sotomayor, et al, wishes it to evolve.
I just saw a news story that says a transgender illegal alien can’t be deported because the people outside the US might not like (he,she, it).
I wonder which article or amendment of the Constitution says that we have to be concerned with what the people in another country think of an illegal person before we can deport them? But I’m sure that’s included in ‘face value’ somewhere.
@retire05 #96:
You went to great lengths to assure me that your #91 comment to Greg:
did NOT mean that those writings have any bearing on what is actually contained in the Constitution. If you DIDN’T mean that those writings were relevant to the Constitution’s content, why did you want Greg to read them? To waste his time?
I said that the Constitution has to be taken at face value. By “Constitution,” I meant all of it – including the Amendments – not just the document that was ratified in 1789. A strict originalist should reject the amendments because they weren’t part of the ORIGINAL document, right?
If you insist that an originalist CAN accept the amendments, then where does that leave you when a court finds that the 14th amendment conflicts with the 10th amendment on a question like same-sex marriage? The Roberts Court found that the 14th Amendment trumped the 10th Amendment when the latter’s protection of states’ rights infringed on the 14th amendments equal protection. You may not agree with the SCOTUS’ conclusion, but they were within their rights to reach it, and it is now law.
As written, the Constitution provides for exactly what happened. The court reviews laws when they are challenged on constitutional grounds, as were anti-same-sex-marriage laws. The courts found those laws UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and thus void. The courts did NOT legislate, as what they did does not meet the definition of the word.
Our laws generally tell us what we CANNOT do, not what we CAN do. There are no laws that say that we CAN eat hot-dogs, because in the absence of laws that say we CANNOT eat them, it is UNDERSTOOD that we can. Same thing happens with gay marriage. When the laws against gay marriage were voided, it didn’t PRODUCE laws saying the gay people CAN marry, it is simply UNDERSTOOD that they can, in the absence of laws that say that we can’t.
That isn’t “legislating,” it is simply striking laws that fail the constitutionality review.
@George Wells: But you will agree that what you just said means that what is legal today, may be illegal after the next opinion of the Supreme Court. So just because homosexual faux marriage is legal today doesn’t mean it will be next year.
@Redteam #99:
I will agree that there is nothing certain in life except death and taxes.
However, I see no practical path to a reversal of marriage-equality rights.
There simply is no history of such flip-flopping on civil rights that would suggest the likelihood of that option.
You may believe that the right to same-sex marriage will be given and then taken away. You have a right to that belief. Evidently, Retire05 thinks that is what’s coming. But she was wrong on the original SCOTUS decision, and I think she’s wrong again. I don’t think she understands enough about the Constitution and the Court’s logical interpretation of it to make rational predictions about the future of civil rights in America.
The proof is in the pudding.
Wait and see.
You can argue against same-sex-marriage until you are blue in the face, but until something happens to CHANGE the direction that this country has been going on this issue, you are going to remain wrong as wrong can be.
The courts won’t ever undo the marriages that have already been performed, that much I am certain of. Attempting that would create unparalleled legal chaos. Yes, a more conservative court might think about eliminating the right, but if they did that, it would leave some gays who WERE legally married (“grandfathered,” as it were), and the rest of them couldn’t marry in the same way. That would create yet another equal protection conflict, and we have already seen that the Court is particularly reluctant to mess with equal protection. So my prediction that even a more conservative Court would evoke “stare decisis” and not overturn the Obergefell decision.
Just a prediction.