Yes, they're taking major precaution

And the gas stations are taking full advantage from 20-30 cents/gal higher than all the neighboring burgs.

And the gas stations are taking full advantage from 20-30 cents/gal higher than all the neighboring burgs.

 

Are you in Grayson? I don't know what it is in town but it is always higher than Ashland or surrounding areas because of the numerous truck stops. Grayson is a common stopping point for travelers, truckers, etc. I always fill up at the Marathon in front of the driving range in Ashland!

Are you in Grayson? I don't know what it is in town but it is always higher than Ashland or surrounding areas because of the numerous truck stops. Grayson is a common stopping point for travelers, truckers, etc. I always fill up at the Marathon in front of the driving range in Ashland!

Was there yesterday. 2.19 in Ashland. 2.49 at superquik and speedway in Grayson. And for the past 2 years it's been higher in Grayson, when historically Grayson was always lower. Not sure what changed.

Was there yesterday. 2.19 in Ashland. 2.49 at superquik and speedway in Grayson. And for the past 2 years it's been higher in Grayson, when historically Grayson was always lower. Not sure what changed.

 

Yeah Grayson is in a ballpark of usually 20-30 cents higher than Ashland. During the spring it was cheaper in Grayson but that was for a few weeks.

So why Grayson ? Why didnt they protest in Rowan Co ?

There will always be people on the opposite side of a big decision. Wouldn't you agree? It's not just those crazy religious folk...

 

Heck I'm surprised so many people have gotten so upset they went to the judges house. Protesters have done this over and over in police cases too, so it's not a new tactic.

 

Agree 100 percent.

 

I don't agree that the fundamental checks and balances of our government are nonexistent when one of those decisions doesn't go my way.

So why Grayson ? Why didnt they protest in Rowan Co ?

 

Jail is located there, I think.

Jail is located there, I think.

 

Correct.

I'll take you up on it with links and citations when I'm in front of a computer and not a tablet. Here's the quick version:

 

Here are the references asked for.

 

 

The constitution is the supreme law of the country.

• - U.S. Constitution: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

When state law and federal law clash, federal law is superior. (See above.)

 

The Supreme Court interprets the constitution and whether the country's laws are compatible with it.

• - Marbury v. Madison: “If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”
   
  
• - You can read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review
  

The Supreme Court's decisions on what the constitution means can only be changed by a future Supreme Court or by amending the constitution.

• - You’ll simply have to read the constitution. There’s no mechanism to overturn a Supreme Court decision outside of amending the constitution.
   
  
• - You can also look at these textbook charts that outline the checks and balances described in the constitution (“checks and balances” is not a phrase used in the constitution) and see that the “checks” against the Supreme Court are in the appointments of justices by the other branches. http://school.cottondew.net/USGovernment/images/BookScans/ChecksAndBalancesInTheFederalGovernment.jpg
  

In the case of same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court has ruled that the constitution allows same-sex couples the same right to marry as heterosexual couples have.

• - This is what the Court decided [i’m deleting Kennedy’s citations here.]: Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The fundamental liberties protected by this Clause include most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. In addition these liberties extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs.[…] Applying these established tenets, the Court has long held the right to marry is protected by the Constitution. In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967), which invalidated bans on interracial unions, a unanimous Court held marriage is “one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” […]This analysis compels the conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. The four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. […] These considerations lead to the conclusion that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them. Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples.”
   
  
• - “The issue before the Court here is the legal question whether the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry.[…] The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.”
  

Thus, same-sex couples can get married the same as heterosexual couples. Full stop. No state or federal law can undue it, according to the constitution. We can quibble about making some changes on the margins, but denying marriage to same-sex couples is not debatable.

 

Edit: I don't know why my bullet points aren't showing up. Oh well.

The point is that you can disagree with the decision all you want and you can work to change it somehow, but the argument (made by Huckabee et al) that the decision does not apply to the states or that the Supreme Court doesn't have the authority to decide this case is at odds with this country's constitution, 200+ years of its history, and what the recent decision literally said.

I think they just released her from jail, ordered to not interfere with her deputies issuing the licenses to homosexual couples

I think they just released her from jail, ordered to not interfere with her deputies issuing the licenses to homosexual couples

Curious where that news came from.

Curious where that news came from.

 

WKYT tweeted it out 3 minutes ago.

I just heard Bunning dropped the contempt charges.

 

Horrible decision by Bunning.

What a shame she got released. So many of you on here wanting her to rot in jail.