@ eivo,Because we were talking about hourly wages !
February 17, 2014 at 8:05 p.m.
evio writes:"Only 1% of employees make minimum wage." Post # 12
Actually "Minimum wage workers account for 4.7 percent of hourly paid workers in 2012. There were 3.6 million hourly paid workers in the United States with wages at or below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour." - bls.gov website.
February 17, 2014 at 11:42 a.m.
Judge Allen's ruling never mentions marriage outside the context of two live adult humans.
"The Court is compelled to conclude that Virginia's Marriage Laws unconstitutionally deny Virginia's gay and lesbian CITIZENS the fundamental freedom to choose to marry."
No mention of bestiality, no mention of inanimate objects or body parts.
BTW, I hardly think that couples are having children out of wedlock to shield themselves from taxes.
February 16, 2014 at 11:45 a.m.
eivo,- Diversion, you are a a great one to complain about diversion of the the conversation.
You tend to make these wide sweeping statements, for example, that the Obama left wing extremeist judges are siding with the SSM advocates. But when someone points out that even loyalist republican judges do the same - you try to ignore that or claim that it's just a diversion.
Perhaps, just perhaps, judges are ruling on the law as written. Is that a notion that is so hard to accept?
At the present time the momentum to recognize SSM is moving away from your long held beliefs. What I don't understand about your position is the question raised earlier: If you don't care (as you said at #3), why are you so incensed about SSM?
February 16, 2014 at 11:17 a.m.
eivo,More recent SSM news: Feb 12, 2014 A federal judge has ruled that Kentucky must recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states, pointing not only to recent decisions that have struck down bans in other states but also to older rulings on a person's right to marry.
that decision was issued by Heyburn, who, as I mentioned, above does not fit your description of the "Obama left wing extremist judge". He was recommended by McConnell and appointed by Geo. Bush.
Maybe you should keep up, things are moving fast
February 15, 2014 at 11:05 p.m.
eivo,This is how you discuss? When presented with an fact that doesn't fit your narrative, just change the subject?
Please explain how you come to the conclusion that Judge Heyburn is one of "Obama's left wing extremist judges"?
February 15, 2014 at 7:30 p.m.
Recommended for the appointment to US District Court by Mitch McConnell and appointed by Geo. Bush, Heyburn is NOT likely to fit the description "left wing extremist"
February 15, 2014 at 2:15 p.m.
eivo,The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six of the United States Constitution, Clause 2, that establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.
And the 14th amendment “"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
Is it possible that you and the TEA party (Lee & Cruz) have it wrong?
Will they get Rob Portman on board with their bill?
As Elf has been asking you: Why do you care, if it makes no difference to you?
February 15, 2014 at 1:07 p.m.
Your position is that the Federal Constitution is secondary to the state's rights?
Didn't the south conduct a little war over that? How did that come out?
If the states wanted sovereignty, why would they vote to adopt the US Constitution and it's amendments?
And if "they" really think that they made a mistake by adopting the Constitution and why don't they now move to secede?
February 15, 2014 at 11:58 a.m.
eivo,Are you saying that a state has the privilege to decide who is protected by the "equal under law" provisions of the Federal Constitution?
The recent decision is Kentucky is a good example of the state having the right to determine who can marry within that state. Kentucky has a constitutional prohibition to SSM. However, SSM couples married in other states cannot be denied the privileges and rights of DS couples.
IMO the SSM resistance is based on religious convictions and there is no credible evidence that SSM is harmful to state or federal governments or to the rights and privileges of DS couples.
February 15, 2014 at 11:18 a.m.