About mell


8 friends
Follow   4,536 comments   Followed by 5   Following 0   Ignored by 5   Ignoring 2   Ignore mell
Registered May 09, 2012

mell's most recent comments:

  • On Thu, 3 Sep 2015, 7:34pm PDT in Democrat thrown in Jail for refusing to issue a gay marriage license., mell said:

    zzyzzx says

    socal2 says

    Yet when elected officials in San Francisco refuse to follow the law on sanctuary cities which actually results in people being killed, they aren't even fined.

    They should be jailed as accessory to murder.

    Agreed. Though since they are not prosecuted they must have some technicality in the law they can hide behind.

  • On Thu, 3 Sep 2015, 7:29pm PDT in Democrat thrown in Jail for refusing to issue a gay marriage license., mell said:

    David9 says

    I don't think of Martha Stewart as being on the edge, fringe of society.

    She was nailed as an example, he punishment was way too harsh while others get scot free for doing similar shenanigans on a daily basis (and members of congress do it legally!). I actually felt sorry for her.

    David9 says

    I, however, think this is the real problem, again, another news quote:

    "Just because this evil witch, who I have named Cunt- Face Kim Davis is off to jail for harassing the gay community while being paid on the job by the government, her case represents the much larger problem that bigots and alive and well and will go to great lengths to obey the voices in their head, god."

    When you look at past great civilizations, they were usually rooted in one main core belief that most people adhered to and mostly homogenous. I understand what is postulated, but I seriously doubt that an entirely non-homogeneous, non-believing society will be judged any better by history. People love and need belief systems, without a religious code they will turn to other "waves" of hivemind-thinking as you can observe in 2nd and 3rd wave feminism and pc social justice warrioring and whatnot which is currently more threatening to a free society in the US than any religion. Milo Yannopolous (who is gay but not leftist/progressive) said it somewhat like this: "Religion is bad, but without religion we will have pc social justice warriors which is worse". Tongue-in-cheek, but this statement bears much truth IMO.

  • On Thu, 3 Sep 2015, 6:48pm PDT in Democrat thrown in Jail for refusing to issue a gay marriage license., mell said:

    lostand confused says

    You can't . She is elected. She has a job to do-that she is refusing to do. Contempt is the only option left-maybe she might meet her 5th "husband" there-an immense hirsute lesbian.

    You are twisting religious freedom. She can quit and practice her religious freedom-but she is imposing her belief onto others and claiming God's authority is greater than the court/constitution-that is not libertarianism-but total right wing beleifs.

    Yeah, that's a conundrum if she's not quitting by herself, so here's a good change of the law, make he fire-able, saves lots of money to the taxpayer. She is not imposing anything if people are free to marry by law anyways with other clerks (if you leave out the technicality about her not being able to be fired), she is just strongly signaling she doesn't want to work there anymore ;) The libertarian approach is to only have civil unions for everybody regardless of number (polygamy), race, gender, orientation etc. with self-designed contracts and leave the marriage to their respective churches of their faith. Less laws = good.

    David9 says

    I work with Government Contracts, not 'directly' (Personal information). There are things where if I did them, My Ass is going to the Slammer. I was not elected nor did I take an oath.

    Yeah, agreed. But there is always leeway wrt enforcement and prosecution. I am all for the rule of law (though I would change that law in that case and simply have her fired), but while it has de facto been abolished it is exercised with full punitive force against a few scapegoats that are shunned by society anyways. Now we can all feel better.

    David9 says

    I believe it is possible to get married outside of a Church. They did it in the Movie 'Sex and the City' LOL.

    And I believe that's the problem and wrong ;) Secular, government-sponsored marriage is de-facto discrimination, no matter how you extend and change it. It is a form of "positive" discrimination which people debate whether the government can and should use or not. IMO you cannot advocate this sort of positive discrimination in general, but then make it illegal when it suits the mainstream (for example forcing the government to open it to same-sex couples). The reason why governments sponsor(ed) marriages is to encourage stable family units and breeding so we have able taxpayers of tomorrow - whether one may disagree with that or not.

home   top   share   link sharer   users   register   best comments   about