Ky. County clerk makes a stand against feds

[tod evans]

This one chose the **** mountain to die on, hopefully others will grow some courage to stand on other issues too....

Kentucky clerk still won't issue same-sex marriage licenses

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/01/will-clerk-issue-gay-marriage-licenses-after-court-ruling/?intcmp=hpbt1


A defiant Kentucky county clerk will face a federal judge on Thursday in a hearing about her refusal to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins says the federal court alerted him that a hearing is scheduled for 11 a.m. Thursday in Ashland. Watkins says clerk Kim Davis is summonsed to attend, along with all the deputy clerks who work in her office.

Davis' office has steadfastly denied marriage licenses since the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage this summer, and that practice continued Tuesday morning when at least two same-sex couples were denied as Davis invoked "God's authority."

After Davis initially stopped issuing marriage licenses, two gay couples and two straight couples sued her. A federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses, an appeals court upheld that decision and the Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in the case, seemingly leaving Davis with no legal ground to stand on.

But Davis has refused to issue the licenses, saying her deeply held Christian beliefs don't let her endorse gay marriages.

Davis asked David Moore and David Ermold, a couple who has been rejected four times by her office, to leave. They refused, surrounded by reporters and cameras.

"We're not leaving until we have a license," Ermold said.

"Then you're going to have a long day," Davis told him.

From the back of the room, Davis' supporters said: "Praise the Lord! ... Stand your ground."

Other activists shouted that Davis is a bigot and told her: "Do your job."

On Tuesday morning, shortly after Davis' remarks, the sheriff's office cleared the county office of those gathered to support both sides of the issue.

The two groups lined up on either side of the courthouse entrance to chant at each other. Davis' supporters told her to "stand firm," while gay-rights activists shouted "do your job."

The rejected couples' supporters called the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit on their behalf. They asked that their attorneys file to have Davis held in contempt.

Randy Smith, leading the group supporting Davis, said he knows following their instruction to "stand firm" might mean Davis goes to jail.

"But at the end of the day, we have to stand before God, which has higher authority than the Supreme Court," he said.

Ermold hugged Moore, his partner of 17 years, and they cried and swayed as they left the clerk's office. Davis' supporters marched by, chanting.

"I feel sad, I feel devastated," Ermold said. "I feel like I've been humiliated on such a national level, I can't even comprehend it."

[specsaregood]

Ermold hugged Moore, his partner of 17 years, and they cried and swayed as they left the clerk's office. Davis' supporters marched by, chanting.

"I feel sad, I feel devastated," Ermold said. "I feel like I've been humiliated on such a national level, I can't even comprehend it."

Somehow I doubt that, you got exactly what you wanted. The truth is that it is YOU that has sought to humiliate Kim Davis and have failed so far.

[juleswin]

I would have a lot more sympathy for Kim Davis if she was some private business trying to stand up for what she believes in. But when you work for govt, you sorta lose that privilege to do what you think is right especially when what is being asked of you is not hurting anything more than other people's feelings..

Do your job and quit whinning or quit with integrity.

[tod evans]

I would have a lot more sympathy for Kim Davis if she was some private business trying to stand up for what she believes in. But when you work for govt, you sorta lose that privilege to do what you think is right especially when what is being asked of you is not hurting anything more than other people's feelings..

Do your job and quit whinning or quit with integrity.

I like the idea of local governments bucking the feds...

Be nice if more did it for a variety of reasons.

[Sola_Fide]

That's bravery. She will get steamrolled by our wicked government.

[tod evans]

That's bravery. She will get steamrolled by our wicked government.

Maybe American Evangelicals will have learned from the Muslims over in Sandville, when one goes down 12 more take his place....

Or there is the Tee-Vee................Burp.

[specsaregood]

I would have a lot more sympathy for Kim Davis if she was some private business trying to stand up for what she believes in. But when you work for govt, you sorta lose that privilege to do what you think is right especially when what is being asked of you is not hurting anything more than other people's feelings..


Aint that a slippery slope. just following orders and all that jazz...

[juleswin]

I like the idea of local governments bucking the feds...

Be nice if more did it for a variety of reasons.

Yea, I too like the idea of local rule but that doesn't mean I like her reasoning behind it or agree that this is the issue to stand your ground on. Yea, she says that her religion doesn't allow her to issue those licenses, but she is probably OK with giving marriage licenses to atheists and other non believers.

Had she said something like "I am trying to save tax payers money" or "marriage is not a role of the govt" then I would be on her side. But stopping all marriage licenses because the fed changed their rules when previously she was following the feds rules is something that doesn't sit well with me.

[juleswin]

Aint that a slippery slope. just following orders and all that jazz...

How convenient that you didn't highlight the latter part of my sentence? This is textbook description of a quote mining. Just take the part that is convenient and leave out the part that gives the sentence its full meaning.

[tod evans]

It's gotta be rough choosing whether to back the Evangelical or the **** eh?


Not for me.

I'll back whomever is fighting federal oversight.

[specsaregood]

How convenient that you didn't highlight the latter part of my sentence? This is textbook description of a quote mining. Just take the part that is convenient and leave out the part that gives the sentence its full meaning.

Convenience? I simply highlighted the important part and left nothing out of your quote. Don't get upset with me because I highlighted your flawed thinking.

[surf]

just fire her ass. it's another goddamn government license, and she's turning the courthouse into her own dmv.

[tod evans]

just fire her ass. it's another goddamn government license, and she's turning the courthouse into her own dmv.

I'm betting the locals who voted her into office might have something so say about it.......

[juleswin]

Convenience? I simply highlighted the important part and left nothing out of your quote. Don't get upset with me because I highlighted your flawed thinking.

A fair minded person would probably highlight the part of the sentence that started with "especially". Its sort indicates the conditions that gives the sentence value.

Just saying

[Sonny Tufts]

She's no different than a Muslim DMV worker who refuses to issue a driver's license to a woman because of his religious beliefs. The county ought to fire her for not doing her job.

[juleswin]

I'm betting the locals who voted her into office might have something so say about it.......

Remember the states, local govts are just a mini feds, easier to fight off but they can be just as unreasonable and tyrannical as their big brother The Fed

[jj-]

I'd like to see the people elect only clerks who refuse to give licenses.

[Mr.NoSmile]

Can't the people who want to get married just find another clerk?

[tod evans]

She's no different than a Muslim DMV worker who refuses to issue a driver's license to a woman because of his religious beliefs. The county ought to fire her for not doing her job.

Never lived in rural USA have you?

The county elected her.

[donnay]

I like the idea of local governments bucking the feds...

Be nice if more did it for a variety of reasons.

Yes indeed. I would also like to see the government (State and Federal) get out of the marriage all together.

[RP Supporter]

If she's accepting a government paycheck, I don't exactly have much sympathy for her deciding which of the governments laws she's going to enforce. If this was any other job and she decided to do her own thing she'd be out the door.

That said, I would be interested in seeing how she'd fair if she ran in the next election with this now known. If I were her and ambitious I'd embrace the controversy and pull a Roy Moore and try to run for higher office. Heck, I bet the Constitution Party would nominate her for president.

[specsaregood]

A fair minded person would probably highlight the part of the sentence that started with "especially". Its sort indicates the conditions that gives the sentence value.

Just saying

Actually I was just going to let that part be; but since you bring it up. In the first part that I highlighted you argue that somebody with a govt job can't allow their own bias and feelings to affect how they do their job; then you introduce your own bias into the equation.


especially when what is being asked of you is not hurting anything more than other people's feelings..
clearly the clerk in question thinks that approving the license would do much more, she values her soul and religious beliefs. you are act as if those have no values because of your own bias.

"especially?" Either you can do what is right all the time or not at all, no especially.

[surf]

I'm betting the locals who voted her into office might have something so say about it.......
lousy excuse. just invoke god's authority.

[Spikender]

Dog and pony show. Make the battle in the news headlines about "gay marriage" while they pillage people's monopoly money savings and continue foreign interventions and raping of rights.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Can't the people who want to get married just find another clerk?

They could, but they want to be celebrated as heroes of the "new civil rights movement."

[Christian Liberty]

It's gotta be rough choosing whether to back the Evangelical or the **** eh?


Not for me.

I'll back whomever is fighting federal oversight.

Yeah, this isn't tough for me either :p

[asurfaholic]

Dog and pony show. Make the battle in the news headlines about "gay marriage" while they pillage people's monopoly money savings and continue foreign interventions and raping of rights.

I think it's bigger than that. There is a massive war for minds and loyalty - and the lines are drawn on morals. The establishment/lefties/neocons all want to take God out of the equation and by doing that, they become God.

I'd like to see government out of marriage as well, as I believe it was originally an institution of faith and belief that two become one in the presence of God. But now that government is involved, and that they give benefits based on marriage status, it would be discriminatory for some groups to be denied those benefits. Enter the government , suddenly the definition of marriage is perverted.

So not so much a dog and pony show to me, these are battles that are raging every day and the war to control the morality of men is a huge issue.

[Sola_Fide]

just fire her ass. it's another government license, and she's turning the courthouse into her own dmv.

I see that point too. Man, if I had the national attention that this person had, I would do some real education.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I hope that none of her supporters respond in kind to the attacks that they will receive. They need to show the world that they are the ones showing love and the LGBT activists are the bigots.

[Sonny Tufts]

They could, but they want to be celebrated as heroes of the "new civil rights movement."

And she could resign, but she wants to be celebrated as a martyr for the right-wing fundamentalists.

[Zippyjuan]

If she does not like to perform the duties her job requires her to do she is free to resign.

[tod evans]

If she does not like to perform the duties her job requires her to do she is free to resign.

Are you alluding to the feds prescribing the "duties of office"?

I believe that's what this whole fiasco is about, federal overreach..

She's not a federal clerk, nor was she elected by federal election...

[Ender]

Are you alluding to the feds prescribing the "duties of office"?

I believe that's what this whole fiasco is about, federal overreach..

She's not a federal clerk, nor was she elected by federal election...

The answer is that everything government, Fed or local, is overreach. Gov should NEVER be involved in marriage; the answer is to get them OUT of the marriage business.

[Jamesiv1]

If she's accepting a government paycheck, I don't exactly have much sympathy for her deciding which of the governments laws she's going to enforce. If this was any other job and she decided to do her own thing she'd be out the door.
^this

If she were any other private citizen, then there are legitimate ways to protest.

But accepting a govt paycheck, and then giving her employer the finger is retarded. Wouldn't happen in the private sector - shouldn't happen in govt sector either.

[juleswin]

Actually I was just going to let that part be; but since you bring it up. In the first part that I highlighted you argue that somebody with a govt job can't allow their own bias and feelings to affect how they do their job; then you introduce your own bias into the equation.

First of all, I was giving my opinion on how I think a govt worker should operate, I don't know why you would equate that to bias but if every ones opinion is bias, then so be it. Also even if it was bias on my own part, I am not a govt worker and my rule is for govt workers. I would follow the same rules had I been a govt worker.


clearly the clerk in question thinks that approving the license would do much more, she values her soul and religious beliefs. you are act as if those have no values because of your own bias.

"especially?" Either you can do what is right all the time or not at all, no especially.

My big problem with her is that she is still getting her salary for not doing work that she is supposed to be doing. Take for example conscientious objector in the army, when they are forced to fight in a war that goes against their religious or moral values, they quit or try to quit their position. They don't thumb their nose at their superiors or still collecting their pay and benefits while refusing to fight.

In this case, tax payers whose taxes pay her salary are demanding that she do her job and she is refusing it. These tax payers weren't asked if paying taxes to a govt that does not recognize their union was OK with them, but their pay cheques were forcibly garnished and used to pay this woman's salary and she has the guts to refuse to offer licenses to the very people that pay her salary.

Sorry but she has to go and carry on the fight at the unemployment line, where I hope the administrator refuses to give her the unemployment cheques because of religious reasons.

[Christian Liberty]

The answer is that everything government, Fed or local, is overreach. Gov should NEVER be involved in marriage; the answer is to get them OUT of the marriage business.

I don't quite 100% agree with this anymore but I'm OK with this position. But, if you're going to advocate this, the FIRST step is to advocate against federal involvement wholesale. So you should be OK with interposition here.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Chieppa1]

She kinda just sounds like a bigot that says the word "Constitution" a lot.

[tod evans]

The answer is that everything government, Fed or local, is overreach. Gov should NEVER be involved in marriage; the answer is to get them OUT of the marriage business.

How can one realistically view this in a different light than the kops in Co. refusing to enforce federal weed laws?

Since there are state and local government functionaries I'm glad to see any of them flip off the feds, for any reason.

(Notice I didn't address government involvement in marriage.)

[Influenza]

She's no different than a Muslim DMV worker who refuses to issue a driver's license to a woman because of his religious beliefs. The county ought to fire her for not doing her job.

What kind of false analogy is this? There are no "women can't drive" Muslim religious beliefs.

[jonhowe]

I'm betting the locals who voted her into office might have something so say about it.......

I'd say so. She was elected to give marriage licenses, among other things. She's failing at that job by not giving legally valid licenses. She should step aside and allow the government to function, or resign.

[jonhowe]

What kind of false analogy is this? There are no "women can't drive" Muslim religious beliefs.

If she refuses to 'cover up' for her photo ID, then. The analogy stands.

"My religion says women must cover up. The woman pictured on this license is not covered up, therefore I will not issue it."
"My religion says marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. This license has 2 men listed, therefore I will not issue it."

Why not a doctor not signing, or a clerk not issuing, a birth certificate for a baby born out of wedlock?

[tod evans]

I'd say so. She was elected to give marriage licenses, among other things. She's failing at that job by not giving legally valid licenses. She should step aside and allow the government to function, or resign.

What government are you advocating for? Surely not a federalized one.....

Were she elected in your county you'd have call to express your dissatisfaction, your vote in her county carries no weight.

[Sonny Tufts]

What kind of false analogy is this? There are no "women can't drive" Muslim religious beliefs.

There is in Saudi Arabia. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/oct/07/dean-obeidallah/obeidallah-saudi-arabia-only-muslim-nation-where-w/

[jonhowe]

What government are you advocating for? Surely not a federalized one.....

Were she elected in your county you'd have call to express your dissatisfaction, your vote in her county carries no weight.

A government under the US Constitution which, according to the reading of the 14th Amendment by the SCOTUS, does not allow marriage licenses to be denied because of gender or sexuality of those marrying.
A government in KY which no longer legally defines marriage as between a man and a woman due to said ruling.
The government in her county which follows KY laws regarding marriage.

I personally find the decision on Obergefell V Hodges to be based on rather weak legal logic, but not so weak that I find it objectionable. (I have to admit some bias in favor of the outcome, though, despite my legal misgivings.)

I admit a great deal of bias on this issue due to personal reasons and relations.**

[JK/SEA]

meh...truth is, she's just hiding behind her intolerance using religion as her holier than thou shield.

[Wooden Indian]

As a Christian (albeit one that tries to follow Christ's Word and NOT the church), I would ask her how she could see where to sign her name with the giant MOTE sticking out of her eye, whilst judging others. As a man, I applaud NEARLY every opportunity to stick it to the Feds. I'm torn but think there are much bigger fish to fry.

Gubmint logs every key stroke we make and has even our grandchildren in debt to a cruel master... two ladies or dudes exchanging vows is not high on my list of "shit that's wrong with America.

Wake me when she makes her stand against intrusion of privacy, taxation, and senseless war.

[tod evans]

I admit a great deal of bias on this issue due to personal reasons and relations.**

Obviously you desire to discuss **** marriage instead of some broad standing up to the feds..

I'm not your guy.

[William Tell]

Good for her.

[Spikender]

I think it's bigger than that. There is a massive war for minds and loyalty - and the lines are drawn on morals. The establishment/lefties/neocons all want to take God out of the equation and by doing that, they become God.

I'd like to see government out of marriage as well, as I believe it was originally an institution of faith and belief that two become one in the presence of God. But now that government is involved, and that they give benefits based on marriage status, it would be discriminatory for some groups to be denied those benefits. Enter the government , suddenly the definition of marriage is perverted.

So not so much a dog and pony show to me, these are battles that are raging every day and the war to control the morality of men is a huge issue.

I agree that small battles and small encroachments are really how we've gotten to this point, but there is such a huge focus on gay marriage as a political issue that I feel like other issues get smothered. Then again, I guess everyone has an issue closer to their heart, and this might be one for others.

I've said the same thing about Government involvement in marriage myself in respect to gay marriage when it comes to benefits, but like I said, it just seems to be an issue that overshadows everything else.

[jonhowe]

Obviously you desire to discuss **** marriage instead of some broad standing up to the feds..

I'm not your guy.

That's what you got out of my post? Not the stated constitutional justification for the ruling (have you read it? Obergefell V Hodges is an easy read!)?


One reason (of many) I hate political correctness is that, if taken to its logical extreme, it would make it harder for me to identify assholes like you from your word choice.

[tod evans]

That's what you got out of my post? Not the stated constitutional justification for the ruling (have you read it? Obergefell V Hodges is an easy read!)?


One reason (of many) I hate political correctness is that, if taken to its logical extreme, it would make it harder for me to identify assholes like you from your word choice.

Shove it up your ass buttercup..

[edit]

Thanks for the red pip, I didn't "miss the point" you did, you fucking idiot.

The point isn't about Evangelicals or *****, it's about standing up to the federal government, 1st sentence OP.

[Tywysog Cymru]

And she could resign, but she wants to be celebrated as a martyr for the right-wing fundamentalists.

But here's the difference. The gay couple has nothing to lose, but Kim Davis has a lot to lose. She could even go to jail.

[William Tell]

Shove it up your ass buttercup..

[edit]

Thanks for the red pip, I didn't "miss the point" you did, you fucking idiot.

The point isn't about Evangelicals or *****, it's about standing up to the federal government, 1st sentence OP.

Sure does dole out the negs.

[Sonny Tufts]

But here's the difference. The gay couple has nothing to lose, but Kim Davis has a lot to lose. She could even go to jail.

She could. But it hasn't dawned on her that since she works for Caesar, she needs to render unto Caesar the things her job description calls for. And anyone who think Caesar should be out of the marriage business should be the first to call on her to resign.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Somehow I doubt that, you got exactly what you wanted. The truth is that it is YOU that has sought to humiliate Kim Davis and have failed so far.

Do you know if they could just go to the next county and get a license? If that's the case, these two are definitely grandstanding -- and more interested in making a political point than getting married.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

I haven't really seen any in-depth comments from this woman -- this story doesn't really have any -- so it's hard to judge how legitimate her argument is.

If she's saying that the SCOTUS ruling is obviously fraudulent and unConstitutional, that state legislatures should write family law, that same-sex marriage is not recognized by legitimate Kentucky law, and therefore she's refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses -- that would be legit.

If all she's saying is that God told her to, that's pretty lame.

It will be interesting to see what happens next.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm generally for the "don't work for the system" idea but one of the ways to work against the system is to defy it like this.

[Sonny Tufts]

If she's saying that the SCOTUS ruling is obviously fraudulent and unConstitutional, that state legislatures should write family law, that same-sex marriage is not recognized by legitimate Kentucky law, and therefore she's refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses -- that would be legit.

That is about as legit as some 1950's segregationist claiming that Brown v. Board of Education was fraudulent and unconstitutional and that state legislatures should write local school laws.

[Tywysog Cymru]

That is about as legit as some 1950's segregationist claiming that Brown v. Board of Education was fraudulent and unconstitutional and that state legislatures should write local school laws.

If you want to claim gay marriage as a civil rights issue you can literally turn anything into a civil rights issue and smear opponents as bigots. That sort of attitude is partly to blame for the SJW epidemic.

[oyarde]

Are you alluding to the feds prescribing the "duties of office"?

I believe that's what this whole fiasco is about, federal overreach..

She's not a federal clerk, nor was she elected by federal election...Correct.

[jj-]

Kentucky's Republican nominee for governor, Matt Bevin, said Tuesday that he supports Davis' "willingness to stand for her First Amendment rights," and if elected, would have people download marriage licenses on the Internet to file at clerk's offices just like other documents.

Conway, his Democratic opponent, has said he supports a new state law that would protect clerks who do not want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

..

[surf]

She's no different than a Muslim DMV worker who refuses to issue a driver's license to a woman because of his religious beliefs. The county ought to fire her for not doing her job.thread winner

[surf]

Kentucky's Republican nominee for governor, Matt Bevin, said Tuesday that he supports Davis' "willingness to stand for her First Amendment rights," and if elected, would have people download marriage licenses on the Internet to file at clerk's offices just like other documents.

Conway, his Democratic opponent, has said he supports a new state law that would protect clerks who do not want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
bureaucrats protecting bureaucrats

[squarepusher]

http://i.imgur.com/yXsD4tt.png


http://i.imgur.com/dz1Vbpx.png

[TheCount]

Does she enforce all the biblical marriage laws or is it just (mysteriously) this one which she finds to be important?


EDIT:


http://i.imgur.com/dz1Vbpx.png




Guess that answers my question.

[tod evans]

Does she enforce all the biblical marriage laws or is it just (mysteriously) this one which she finds to be important?

EDIT:

Guess that answers my question.

How are you able to twist a "moral objection" into "enforcing all the biblical marriage laws"?

I don't care if the broad is a **** herself or into beastiality she's buckin' the feds and for that I commend her.

[TheCount]

How are you able to twist a "moral objection" into "enforcing all the biblical marriage laws"?

She has a shit first amendment argument if she's not religiously consistent.




I don't care if the broad is a **** herself or into beastiality she's buckin' the feds and for that I commend her.

Yes, fuck laws, let's let public officials just decide day to day when and how they do their jobs. What could possibly go wrong?

http://i.imgur.com/quEMHfX.gif

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[tod evans]

She has a shit first amendment argument if she's not religiously consistent.

Yes, fuck laws, let's let public officials just decide day to day when and how they do their jobs. What could possibly go wrong?


I've only read of you invoking a constitutional amendment to support her position, yet another twist from her statement of "deeply held religious beliefs"...

Once again you're going through mental gymnastics to discredit her stance against the feds...........Why?

Is it because you dislike her personally or is it because you support the feds, or is it something altogether different?

[buck000]

The arguments against the clerk's action made in this NPR article (http://www.npr.org/2015/09/01/436673707/law-professor-davis-cant-evoke-religion-to-deny-marriage-licenses) seem reasonable....

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[tod evans]

Bunch of folks wanting to turn this thread into another debate about **** marriage....

Would you please go find one of the countless other discussions on that matter and leave this thread for discussing standing up to the feds...

[Sonny Tufts]

Would you please go find one of the countless other discussions on that matter and leave this thread for discussing standing up to the feds...

You can stand up to the feds and still be hopelessly wrong. Recall George Wallace, who proclaimed, "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" and then 5 months later stood in the doorway at the University of Alabama to try to prevent federal troops from enforcing racial integration at the university. Was he a hero or just a bigot who didn't give a damn about the rule of law?

[wizardwatson]

What kind of false analogy is this? There are no "women can't drive" Muslim religious beliefs.

I think it's a truism pretty much everywhere.

Everyone knows women can't drive.

[JK/SEA]

Everyone knows women can't drive.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wq-5nlE_Wo

[ChiefJustice]

She holds a position within a secular government. It is the law to give a marriage liscence to an LGBT couple. If she doesn't like it she can quit. There is no defense for her actions.

[asurfaholic]

With the new information out on this I can't help but feel the way I'd imagine I would feel if I was counting on Obama to protect my rights.

Sorry I don't stand behind this sort of hypocrisy. She's not standing up to the Feds, she IS the Feds.

[wizardwatson]

She holds a position within a secular government. It is the law to give a marriage liscence to an LGBT couple. If she doesn't like it she can quit. There is no defense for her actions.

The law of the land is lawlessness anyway. You can't judge her on moral grounds. You can only judge her on the grounds which are the basis for the law those judges conjured.

She isn't respecting the "dignity" of the institution (of either gay marriage or SCOTUS circus).

Popular opinion says her actions are offensive. That's what she is guilty of.

Gay marriage decision took a big dump on the Constitution so I see it as laughable that people applaud that decision which threw the rule of law out the window and now everyone is saying she must respect the rule of law.

She's fighting for her "right to express her identity". She should be celebrated like everyone else who's doing the same thing.

[jllundqu]

To me, this woman is in error. If her faith tells her she can't participate in what her job legally demands of her, she should resign in good conscience, especially being a government employee. She has no protections and really no valid argument.

This is a case where the Religious community should show some consistency and intellectual honesty... she is brave, but wrong.

[Tywysog Cymru]

You can stand up to the feds and still be hopelessly wrong. Recall George Wallace, who proclaimed, "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" and then 5 months later stood in the doorway at the University of Alabama to try to prevent federal troops from enforcing racial integration at the university. Was he a hero or just a bigot who didn't give a damn about the rule of law?

That comparison again? The two issues are not related but it seems like the LGBT activists have to use that comparison because it's the only one they can use.

[ChiefJustice]

The law of the land is lawlessness anyway. You can't judge her on moral grounds. You can only judge her on the grounds which are the basis for the law those judges conjured.

She isn't respecting the "dignity" of the institution (of either gay marriage or SCOTUS circus).

Popular opinion says her actions are offensive. That's what she is guilty of.

Gay marriage decision took a big dump on the Constitution so I see it as laughable that people applaud that decision which threw the rule of law out the window and now everyone is saying she must respect the rule of law.

She's fighting for her "right to express her identity". She should be celebrated like everyone else who's doing the same thing.
No she should not be celebrated. I don't care if you disagree with a SC decision which advanced the civil rights of gays.

It's the law. Her actions are not that of some heroic freedom fighter. Give them their licenses or quit. That's the bottom line. Her argument about her religion is nonsense. The law can't be twisted by an individual based off religious beliefs.

[surf]

Bunch of folks wanting to turn this thread into another debate about **** marriage....

Would you please go find one of the countless other discussions on that matter and leave this thread for discussing standing up to the feds...
what Sonny said. tod may see this as standing up to the feds, but essentially this is a "personal rights" issue if not a convoluted "freedom issue." this "clerk" is like a TSA agent that won't let your mom on a cross country flight (for some random reason, perhaps the agent will cite "god's authority"). sure, you're mom can take Greyhound....

if you believe that a gov't should be able take away or hinder an individual's ability to do something peaceful, it seems that this **** mountain is the one you're making your stand on in this thread.

gov't should never limit individuals as they pursue peaceful endeavors.

[tod evans]

what Sonny said. tod may see this as standing up to the feds, but essentially this is a "personal rights" issue if not a convoluted "freedom issue." this "clerk" is like a TSA agent that won't let your mom on a cross country flight (for some random reason, perhaps the agent will cite "god's authority"). sure, you're mom can take Greyhound....

if you believe that a gov't should be able take away or hinder an individual's ability to do something peaceful, it seems that this **** mountain is the one you're making your stand on in this thread.

gov't should never limit individuals as they pursue peaceful endeavors.

Earlier in this thread I drew the analogy between kops in Co. not enforcing federal weed laws, how is this different?

I don't like kops, weed laws or government approved marriage, hell I'm not very fond of ***** or Evangelicals either but the last thing I want is for the federal government to enforce it's edicts at the peril of a local governments employee. What's next, firing the kops in Co. and Wa. that aren't busting pot smokers?

People aren't ever going to become homogenous, like minded folks tend to clump together, permitting the fed to homogenize the groups isn't going to work out well....

[William Tell]

That comparison again? The two issues are not related but it seems like the LGBT activists have to use that comparison because it's the only one they can use.

Sonny's comparisons generally seem to mirror what you see on the Huffington Post.

[tod evans]

You can stand up to the feds and still be hopelessly wrong. Recall George Wallace, who proclaimed, "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" and then 5 months later stood in the doorway at the University of Alabama to try to prevent federal troops from enforcing racial integration at the university. Was he a hero or just a bigot who didn't give a damn about the rule of law?

Both.

In a free society there will be bigotry, and racism, and sexism and religious disputes and, and, and.......

I don't want to live in a cookie cutter, federally mandated society.

Give me messy freedom every time!

[Christian Liberty]

Earlier in this thread I drew the analogy between kops in Co. not enforcing federal weed laws, how is this different?

I don't like kops, weed laws or government approved marriage, hell I'm not very fond of ***** or Evangelicals either but the last thing I want is for the federal government to enforce it's edicts at the peril of a local governments employee. What's next, firing the kops in Co. and Wa. that aren't busting pot smokers?

People aren't ever going to become homogenous, like minded folks tend to clump together, permitting the fed to homogenize the groups isn't going to work out well....

Yeah, I mostly agree with this. We need more decisions made at the local level, gives everyone far more choice of what type of society they want to live in.

[tod evans]

To me, this woman is in error. If her faith tells her she can't participate in what her job legally demands of her, she should resign in good conscience, especially being a government employee. She has no protections and really no valid argument.

This is a case where the Religious community should show some consistency and intellectual honesty... she is brave, but wrong.


There is no singular religious community to be consistent, just within Christianity there are numerous factions that argue amongst themselves like old married couples...

Then if one were to drag in the other "recognized" religions there'd be all out war...

This isn't an issue for the fed to be involved in.

[tod evans]

No she should not be celebrated. I don't care if you disagree with a SC decision which advanced the civil rights of gays.

It's the law. Her actions are not that of some heroic freedom fighter. Give them their licenses or quit. That's the bottom line. Her argument about her religion is nonsense. The law can't be twisted by an individual based off religious beliefs.

Never stood in "Family Court" have you?

Laws are twisted and perverted daily by every member of the "Just-Us" system from kops to judges, sometimes for religious beliefs other times for arbitrary reasons.

If you want a homogenous legal system then you must remove the human element.

I don't want that! I want messy freedom and that includes the freedom to be an "ist" or a "phobe"....

[Influenza]

If she refuses to 'cover up' for her photo ID, then. The analogy stands.

"My religion says women must cover up. The woman pictured on this license is not covered up, therefore I will not issue it."
"My religion says marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. This license has 2 men listed, therefore I will not issue it."

Why not a doctor not signing, or a clerk not issuing, a birth certificate for a baby born out of wedlock?

A photo ID has absolutely no significance as to whether or not a Muslim would argue that a woman shouldn't drive a car on actual religious grounds. I simply wanted the original post to say something more like "A saudi arabian DMV worker not issuing a woman a driver's license due to his cultural beliefs" or at least something that wasn't so horribly generalized and incorrect as what was posted


There is in Saudi Arabia. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/oct/07/dean-obeidallah/obeidallah-saudi-arabia-only-muslim-nation-where-w/

That isn't a religious belief. The culture of the Arabian Peninsula subjugated women long before Islam and long after

[Christian Liberty]

Ugh... I hate how secular society pretends false religious beliefs are similar to true ones.

Drivers licensing should be abolished.

[juleswin]

A photo ID has absolutely no significance as to whether or not a Muslim would argue that a woman shouldn't drive a car on actual religious grounds. I simply wanted the original post to say something more like "A saudi arabian DMV worker not issuing a woman a driver's license due to his cultural beliefs" or at least something that wasn't so horribly generalized and incorrect as what was posted



That isn't a religious belief. The culture of the Arabian Peninsula subjugated women long before Islam and long after

It is actually a religious belief, the country has religious and non religious police and it is the religious police that are tasked to enforce such laws, so a devout salafi (Wahhabi) Muslim from Saudi Arabia would reject a woman from getting a driving license based on religious objections where say a devout Shia Saudi Muslim wouldn't have a problem whatsoever.

It is the religion more than the culture that is at play here

[Sonny Tufts]

That comparison again? The two issues are not related but it seems like the LGBT activists have to use that comparison because it's the only one they can use.

The issue that is exactly the same in each case is that of a public official, who presumably took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, refusing to abide by the law. Just as there were those who thought Brown was wrongly decided there are those who believe the same about Obergefell. But like it or not, the two SCOTUS decisions are the law, and any public official who refuses to resign and continues to defy the law is a hypocrite and a fool.

[Influenza]

It is actually a religious belief, the country has religious and non religious police and it is the religious police that are tasked to enforce such laws, so a devout salafi (Wahhabi) Muslim from Saudi Arabia would reject a woman from getting a driving license based on religious objections where say a devout Shia Saudi Muslim wouldn't have a problem whatsoever.

It is the religion more than the culture that is at play here

The Wahhabis will claim they are arguing it religiously, but their beliefs are rooted in their backwards culture, a culture where they would bury their female infants alive 1500 years ago. However, the nuance between religious beliefs and religious beliefs originating from culture is hard to differentiate and I will concede this point

[Jamesiv1]

She's fighting for her "right to express her identity". She should be celebrated like everyone else who's doing the same thing.
If she was in the private sector, yes. But she's not in the private sector.

You take a government paycheck, you play by government rules.

Employees that refuse to adhere to company policies don't get celebrated, they get fired.

[JK/SEA]

if she came into my business, i'd tell her to GTFO...

[tod evans]

if she came into my business, i'd tell her to GTFO...

The clerk or the ****?

[specsaregood]

If she was in the private sector, yes. But she's not in the private sector.
You take a government paycheck, you play by government rules.


just following orders, bro.

I'm glad snowden didn't follow your rules.

[juleswin]

just following orders, bro.

Yea, because we all know that anytime anyone just follows orders, they are putting Jews in concentration camps. These are essentially her bosses telling her to do something for them, not something to other people and you want to play the Nazi card. Nobody is asking her to do something she has never done before, they are just asking her to do her job, a job she has done for countless number of people in her county.

[tod evans]

Yea, because we all know that anytime anyone just follows orders, they are putting Jews in concentration camps. These are essentially her bosses telling her to do something for them, not something to other people and you want to play the Nazi card. Nobody is asking her to do something she has never done before, they are just asking her to do her job, a job she has done for countless number of people in her county.

I'm calling bullshit!

Since when are the feds a county clerks boss?

[specsaregood]

Yea, because we all know that anytime anyone just follows orders, they are putting Jews in concentration camps. These are essentially her bosses telling her to do something for them, not something to other people and you want to play the Nazi card. Nobody is asking her to do something she has never done before, they are just asking her to do her job, a job she has done for countless number of people in her county.

She has a moral objection. you disagree. you either support the right for somebody to have a moral disagreement with their job/duty and do what they feel is right or you don't. it is as simple as that.

the voters in her county will be free to vote her out soon enough.

[William Tell]

I'm calling bullshit!

Since when are the feds a county clerks boss?
Out of rep.

[TheCount]

I'm calling bullshit!

Since when are the feds a county clerks boss?

They aren't. The people of her county are her boss. You know, the ones whose licenses she's failing to issue.

[idiom]

http://i.imgur.com/7YbpwK5.png


She has a moral objection. you disagree. you either support the right for somebody to have a moral disagreement with their job/duty and do what they feel is right or you don't. it is as simple as that.

the voters in her county will be free to vote her out soon enough.


She does not have a moral objection. He has a bigoted objection which she is trying to back-justify.

[William Tell]

They aren't. The people of her county are her boss. You know, the ones whose licenses she's failing to issue.

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1 of 2004 regarding marriage was supported by 75% of Kentucky voters.

[specsaregood]

She does not have a moral objection. He has a bigoted objection which she is trying to back-justify.

I'm so glad you can see what goes on in the heart of others. unfortunately I do not have that ability.
I also do not think that a meme accurately sums up one's life.
Also, it seems to me that you are proposing that people be forced to prove or justify their moral objections.

[tod evans]

They aren't. The people of her county are her boss. You know, the ones whose licenses she's failing to issue.

Yes they are, you know the ones who elected her, the ones who will elect her again if the feds don't imprison her.

Something tells me that there's a severe shortage of ***** and even **** sympathisers in rural Ky...

Hell the locals might even build her a statute....

This is a dry county except for one town, an Evangelical meca...

Inbreeding comes closer to acceptance than homosexuality but the feds and their supporters are going to try and make this a big deal....

[phill4paul]

I've read up on her "moral" character w/ regards to her objections. What a cunt.

[phill4paul]

Yes they are, you know the ones who elected her, the ones who will elect her again if the feds don't imprison her.

Something tells me that there's a severe shortage of ***** and even **** sympathisers in rural Ky...

Hell the locals might even build her a statute....

This is a dry county except for one town, an Evangelical meca...

Inbreeding comes closer to acceptance than homosexuality but the feds and their supporters are going to try and make this a big deal....

Wonder what would happen if she refused to marry cops or DA's.

[tod evans]

I've read up on her "moral" character w/ regards to her objections. What a cunt.

Yeah but this cunt has got the guts to tell the feds to fuck off.........

This needs to happen more often and for other reasons....

I hope she inspires others to stand up to the feds......

[tod evans]

Wonder what would happen if she refused to marry cops or DA's.

Given the area she's in and after looking at her I'll bet she gives free BJ's to any kop or DA that'll let her.......

[RJB]

A marriage certificate isn't a right to marry. It's a privilege to get an expensive divorce.

[Christian Liberty]

I've read up on her "moral" character w/ regards to her objections. What a cunt.

I understand but I still think what she's doing is good even if she's personally a hypocrite.


Wonder what would happen if she refused to marry cops or DA's.

Meh, many cops and DAs deserve to have the book thrown at them, but even a cop (or any other criminal) has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender.

[Dianne]

This entire thing stinks to high heaven. It takes at least a year to get a case before the Supreme's, and they heard this complaint againt the Clerk in a matter of days or weeks?

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[phill4paul]

I understand but I still think what she's doing is good even if she's personally a hypocrite.

Nothing done by government regarding licensure is ever good.


Meh, many cops and DAs deserve to have the book thrown at them, but even a cop (or any other criminal) has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender.

And by the "right" to marry do you mean the "privilege" that the government bestows? :rolleyes:

[phill4paul]

Given the area she's in and after looking at her I'll bet she gives free BJ's to any kop or DA that'll let her.......

If it isn't forced then it isn't a thrill to these fuggers. Doubt any took her up on it.

[Christian Liberty]

Nothing done by government regarding licensure is ever good.



I'm for government recording marriages but not licensing them (because I believe the covenant family and not the individual is the basic unit of society.) Our current government is exceedingly wicked though, so if you don't want to "record" your marriage to them (which means asking permission, which is wrong) that's fine.

But... regardless, gay "couples" should NOT be allowed to redefine marriage, they are not families, and they should not be recognized as families by govt. And the bad policy of having licenses in the first place does not justify sanction of abominable homosexual marriage.


And by the "right" to marry do you mean the "privilege" that the government bestows? :rolleyes:

No, I just mean that a marriage between a mafia boss and a person of the opposite gender is actually a marriage. Ted Bundy deserved to be executed, but he could still enter into a marriage relationship with a person of the opposite gender. So my point is, cops and DAs are generally bad people but being a good or bad person really has little to do with whether its legitimate to enter into a marriage. Marriage between two people of the same gender is NEVER possible or marriage period, so by government "licensing" it they are actually basically saying that down can be up too...

[TheCount]

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1 of 2004 regarding marriage was supported by 75% of Kentucky voters.

The tyranny of the majority, you say?

[wizardwatson]

No she should not be celebrated. I don't care if you disagree with a SC decision which advanced the civil rights of gays.

It's the law. Her actions are not that of some heroic freedom fighter. Give them their licenses or quit. That's the bottom line. Her argument about her religion is nonsense. The law can't be twisted by an individual based off religious beliefs.

Well, that's the whole problem with this country isn't it?

"You don't care that I disagree" because, as you say, "it's the law".

But in Kentucky the law is NO gay marriage. But on June 26, 2015, five judges in Washington D.C. decided to rewrite the law based on basic violations of common sense BUT! according to "tradition" I suppose we're suppose to just consider what those five people say as "the law", even though it's quite obvious from the substance of the decision that those five people give two shits about "tradition" or "the law".

So as enlightened as your response is, I'm going to have have to disagree and say you are pretty clueless about what the bottom line is in this issue.

[wizardwatson]

If she was in the private sector, yes. But she's not in the private sector.

You take a government paycheck, you play by government rules.

Employees that refuse to adhere to company policies don't get celebrated, they get fired.

When the Supreme Court upholds a law that outlaws "talking" because of CO2 restrictions on the basis that you still have other means to communicate and it doesn't violate the 1st amendment, are you going to obey it?

That's an example of how ridiculous of a decision gay marriage is in the eyes of some people. Not only is it a violation of common sense, it also is pretty much as far as the federal government can stick it's nose into state's rights as possible.

And she is following the rules of her government. The fed's have no jurisdiction over marriage. This is judicial fiat.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

cheques

Are you some kind of British imperialist?

[wizardwatson]

U.S. Constitution amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

and this...


Kentucky Constitution Bill of Rights, Section 1

All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:

First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties.

Second: The right of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences.

Oh, no, but then there's this:


U.S. Constitution 14th amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

But somehow this 14th amendment is interpreted by five judges to mean that it's allowed to violate the 1st on for every state in the union.

This is what we call bullshit.

There is no sane argument I have heard that justifies SCOTUS unilaterally redefining marriage for 300,000,000 people and simultaneously trashing the 10th and 1st amendment.

That's not even unexpected though these days. What's troublesome is people on this forum having a hard time figuring out that this is unconstitutional and then taking the even greater step of saying that this lady should just "follow the law" because "it's the law".

Why should she? If the highest court in the land can ignore God's and man's law to please 3% of the population, why can't this lady ignore man's law to please God?

If lawlessness rules the day you can't judge her morally.

[idiom]

I'm so glad you can see what goes on in the heart of others. unfortunately I do not have that ability.
I also do not think that a meme accurately sums up one's life.
Also, it seems to me that you are proposing that people be forced to prove or justify their moral objections.

She is trying to justify her moral objections. Her moral objections are strangely very picky based on her supposed justification.

[Jamesiv1]

just following orders, bro.

I'm glad snowden didn't follow your rules.
Is Snowden still getting a paycheck?

He chose to bust his employer's balls, and now his former employer wants to hang him. That's the way it works.

I'm not saying you've got to follow orders. I'm just saying if you don't, then don't be surprised when you get fired.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[William Tell]

The tyranny of the majority, you say?

The Constitution leaves issues like marriage to be hashed out by the states/people. The federal government doesn't have any say in Kentucky marriages. That's just how the Constitution works, you are the one supporting federal tyranny.

My personal views on marriage don't come into this, although I oppose homosexual marriage, and believe there is no such thing. I disagree with Kentucky's Amendment 1, I don't think any government should be involved in or define or redefine marriage. But we live in a Republic, not a democracy or a Williamtatorship. Constitutionally Kentucky is in the right.

[Sonny Tufts]

There is no sane argument I have heard that justifies SCOTUS unilaterally redefining marriage for 300,000,000 people and simultaneously trashing the 10th and 1st amendment.

There is no sane argument for laws prohibiting same-sex marriages.

I suppose you think the Court was wrong in Brown and Loving, when it told states they couldn't maintain racially segregated schools or prohibit interracial marriage. After all, didn't the States have the 10th Amendment right to do such things?

The point that continues to elude you is that while Davis has the right to practice her religion, she doesn't have the right to do so as a public employee if it interferes with her duties. If there's a conflict between doing her job and adhering to her religious views, the only choice is to resign.

Would you argue that a family law judge who doesn't believe in divorce on religious grounds should be able to refuse to hear divorce cases and still keep his or her job? Or that a Muslim DMV worker should be able to refuse to issue driver's licenses to women?


If the highest court in the land can ignore God's and man's law

In this country, man's highest law is the Constitution, not a state law that violates it. As far as God's law is concerned, where did you get the notion that we're some kind of theocracy and that it's the duty of the Court to follow your, their, or someone else's interpretation of God's law? After all, the First Amendment isn't exactly consistent with God's law -- it allows one to be a polytheist, in violation of the First Commandment, right?

[William Tell]

More baseless racial connections from Sonny. Just call anyone who disagrees with you racist, eh?
The 9th and 10th amendments don't exist anymore because racism?:rolleyes:

[juleswin]

More baseless racial connections from Sonny. Just call anyone who disagrees with you racist, eh?
The 9th and 10th amendments don't exist anymore because racism?:rolleyes:

Sorry but I am even going to go a bit further. So when the supreme court struck down state laws that made it illegal for interracial couples to get marriage license, was it a bad decision from the supreme court? if it had happened now, would have been against it as you are now with homosexual marriages? See there is no place in the constitution that said anything about marriage so that would have been just as unconstitutional as what they did now.

Also interracial marriages are even mentioned in the bible as being against God's will. So we have a similar situation as we had with interracial marriages and I would be curious to see if you are also against it too. Its only fair that you are consistent in your views about govt.

Deuteronomy 22:9:
"Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled."

I think the best solution for all this is either to eliminate the position completely or give the homosexuals some kind of tax rebate every year that covers their portion of their taxes that go to her office. It probably won't dent her pay cheque now and everybody wins. Don't you love it when everybody wins?

[tod evans]

There is no sane argument for laws prohibiting same-sex marriages.

I suppose you think the Court was wrong in Brown and Loving, when it told states they couldn't maintain racially segregated schools or prohibit interracial marriage. After all, didn't the States have the 10th Amendment right to do such things?

The point that continues to elude you is that while Davis has the right to practice her religion, she doesn't have the right to do so as a public employee if it interferes with her duties. If there's a conflict between doing her job and adhering to her religious views, the only choice is to resign.

Would you argue that a family law judge who doesn't believe in divorce on religious grounds should be able to refuse to hear divorce cases and still keep his or her job? Or that a Muslim DMV worker should be able to refuse to issue driver's licenses to women?



In this country, man's highest law is the Constitution, not a state law that violates it. As far as God's law is concerned, where did you get the notion that we're some kind of theocracy and that it's the duty of the Court to follow your, their, or someone else's interpretation of God's law? After all, the First Amendment isn't exactly consistent with God's law -- it allows one to be a polytheist, in violation of the First Commandment, right?

Are you really so obtuse?

Or do you assume readers of this forum are too stupid to distinguish between federal and county employees?

I'd like to see every county clerk stop reporting everything to the feds.

Every county elected official refusing to enforce federal edicts his constituency rejected.

Fuck a homogenized society!

[Sonny Tufts]

Fuck the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause!

Fixed it for you.

[William Tell]

Sorry but I am even going to go a bit further. So when the supreme court struck down state laws that made it illegal for interracial couples to get marriage license, was it a bad decision from the supreme court? False choice. The federal government has no authority over marriage. Sure, you can find examples and make the case if you want that sometimes courts should make rulings outside their legal jurisdiction. You can find examples and make the case that federal law enforcement should overstep their bounds for the greater good regardless of what the Constitution says. The argument goes Al Capone was a bad person, therefor throw the book at him with whatever you can find. People in the mainstream make this case about the bad guys all the time, I get it.

But this throws the whole constitution out the window. It's letting the camel's nose under the tent, you agree with the supreme court's decision. I doubt you would have agreed that we should accept their will on marriage if they had ruled in the other direction on homosexual marriage. And since you want to make this about interracial marriage, would you have accepted a SCOTUS ruling that banned interracial marriage?

The question does not apply to me, marriage is not part of their job. Just like convicting rapists is not their job. You can jump up and down and point fingers and say that I support crime because of what i just said. But that doesn't make it true. If SCOTUS heard 1,000 violent crime cases this year, and tossed 1,000 violent criminals behind bars, you can clap your hands all you want. And understandably so, of course criminals should be punished, right?
Yeah, I think so too.

But its dumb, its not what they get paid to do. They wouldn't have time to do their real job.

Anytime you support Judicial Overreach, you should ask yourself whether you would agree with the opposite ruling. I suppose you could support SCOTUS overreach once, just this one time. But it doesn't work that way, they will keep on overstepping their jurisdiction, and sooner or later rule in some way that hurts you. As a matter of fact I'm sure they have in the past. Keep telling yourself you can pick and choose rulings, just like sometimes people in the government pick and choose respecting the bill of rights.





Also interracial marriages are even mentioned in the bible as being against God's will. No.... I've read it a few times and haven't seen anywhere where it says that. Moses had an Ethiopian wife, I assume she was black, God seemed more than OK with that if you read where she is mentioned.



So we have a similar situation as we had with interracial marriages and I would be curious to see if you are also against it too. Its only fair that you are consistent in your views about govt. How is it similar? We are discussing the Constitution. SCOTUS says certain things are in the Constitution that clearly are not. If the keep it up they might say drinking a Slurpee violates the Constitution. It doesn't. I personally oppose all government involvement in marriage at all levels. My views, and what the Constitution says are totally different things. Projecting your views into the Constitution is dangerous. Disagreeing with the Constitution is fine, but pretending it says things it doesn't is absurd.

Besides, a man marrying a woman who looks different than him is totally different than the federal government entirely redefining what marriage is. All men and women look different. The idea of men "marrying" other men is a brand new idea.


Deuteronomy 22:9: "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled."




You honestly think that verse is referring to people marrying other people? Wow.

[Sonny Tufts]

More baseless racial connections from Sonny. Just call anyone who disagrees with you racist, eh?
The 9th and 10th amendments don't exist anymore because racism?:rolleyes:

What's baseless is your pathetic take on what I posted. Juleswin got it right -- if you think Obergefell was overreach, logic dictates that Brown and Loving were as well. Regardless of the merits of racial segregation or anti-miscegenation laws, your position would lead to the conclusion that the States have the constitutional right to enact such laws, and the 14th Amendment be damned.

[tod evans]

Fixed it for you.

Thanks.

I have no problem with that.

[Christian Liberty]

Quoting that text to oppose interracial marriage is silly. Although honestly I think the way our system is currently set up that is not a federal issue, contra the courts.

[wizardwatson]

There is no sane argument for laws prohibiting same-sex marriages.

I suppose you think the Court was wrong in Brown and Loving, when it told states they couldn't maintain racially segregated schools or prohibit interracial marriage. After all, didn't the States have the 10th Amendment right to do such things?

The point that continues to elude you is that while Davis has the right to practice her religion, she doesn't have the right to do so as a public employee if it interferes with her duties. If there's a conflict between doing her job and adhering to her religious views, the only choice is to resign.

Would you argue that a family law judge who doesn't believe in divorce on religious grounds should be able to refuse to hear divorce cases and still keep his or her job? Or that a Muslim DMV worker should be able to refuse to issue driver's licenses to women?

Your argument has been debunked by me, the dissenting Justices, and black civil rights leaders.

I've posted this multiple times on this forum.

The sane argument most definitely is the 10th amendment.

Marriage has been defined as 1 man 1 woman consistently in this country since its founding. Adding a qualifier of race diminishes it just the same as subtracting a gender qualifier. Although, this seems to be every detractors first line of defense the scenarios are not the same. Brown and Loving does not apply.

There is no point that is eluding me. She is resisting unlawful federal intrusion. If you want to call this a "George Wallace" moment like the rest of the mainstream media and incorrectly parellel this with interracial marriage, I suppose that's your perogative. It works well with the uneducated.

Your divorce analogy doesn't work because it's an issue of state's rights, not "a judge doing what he wants". It would most definitely be a failure to perform duty if a California judge or clerk was pulling this stunt because gay marriage is legal in that state BUT IN KENTUCKY gay marriage has a constitutional ban.

So my point, if you need clarification, is that SCOTUS has jumped the shark big time on this and the issue is resisting federal infringement on state's rights. I don't see why she has to be complicit in the federal intrusion on the will of the people of Kentucky when there is no sound legal reason for them doing so besides "so let it be written, so let it be done" judicial fiat.


In this country, man's highest law is the Constitution, not a state law that violates it. As far as God's law is concerned, where did you get the notion that we're some kind of theocracy and that it's the duty of the Court to follow your, their, or someone else's interpretation of God's law? After all, the First Amendment isn't exactly consistent with God's law -- it allows one to be a polytheist, in violation of the First Commandment, right?

Again, my stance is that SCOTUS violated the 10th and 1st amendments on a political whim. The constitution is the highest law, but it allows states to make their own laws based on a higher authority. You are not asking her to follow the "law". You are requiring her to obey Obergefell v. Hodges decision in violation of 1st and 10th amendments and in violation of the state of Kentucky Constitution.



I've been following this since before it was news practically:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?477348-SCOTUS-legalizes-Gay-Marriage-10th-Amendment-Obliterated

In my opinion, everyone who argues that gay marriage "should be legal everywhere" and approves of how it was enacted is not a libertarian when it comes to the law and the constitution. They may want to be, but they need to practice more.

[wizardwatson]

What's baseless is your pathetic take on what I posted. Juleswin got it right -- if you think Obergefell was overreach, logic dictates that Brown and Loving were as well. Regardless of the merits of racial segregation or anti-miscegenation laws, your position would lead to the conclusion that the States have the constitutional right to enact such laws, and the 14th Amendment be damned.

You're wrong, donkey kong. IT"S ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE, NOT THE DEFINITION OF PEOPLE AND THEIR GENDER/RACIAL SELF-IDENTIFICATION. Try to remember that.



http://www.vfbaptist.org/articles/articles%20101-200/article00102.htm

Black Clergy Rejection Stirs Gay Marriage Backers

Bishop Gilbert A. Thompson Sr., who as pastor of New Covenant Christian Church in Mattapan heads the largest Protestant congregation in Massachusetts, said black ministers have many reasons for speaking out against gay marriage.

''We're weighing in on this because we're concerned with the epidemic rate of fatherlessness in America and in our community, and we don't think gay marriage helps that cause,'' he said.

Thompson said he believes that homosexuality is a choice and that ''to say there is such a thing as a gay Christian is saying there's an honest thief,'' because gay people can choose not to act on their homosexual impulses.

''I've read that [former presidential candidate] Carol Moseley Braun didn't see any difference between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage, but we believe the difference is enormous,'' Thompson said. ''Today, we look back with scorn at those who twisted the law to make marriage serve a racist agenda, and I believe our descendants will look back the same way at us if we yield to the same kind of pressure a radical sexual agenda is placing on us today. Just as it's distorting the equation of marriage if you press race into it, it's also distorting if you subtract gender.''

[William Tell]

double post.

[Occam's Banana]

Are you really so obtuse?

Or do you assume readers of this forum are too stupid to distinguish between federal and county employees?

I'd like to see every county clerk stop reporting everything to the feds.

Every county elected official refusing to enforce federal edicts his constituency rejected.

Fuck a homogenized society!



Fuck the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause!
Fixed it for you.


Thanks.

I have no problem with that.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tod evans again.

//

[Sonny Tufts]

Your argument has been debunked by me

Only in your dreams.


Adding a qualifier of race diminishes it just the same as subtracting a gender qualifier.

Allowing gays to marry has no effect whatsoever on a hetero marriage.


She is resisting unlawful federal intrusion. If you want to call this a "George Wallace" moment like the rest of the mainstream media and incorrectly parellel this with interracial marriage, I suppose that's your perogative. It works well with the uneducated.

What is uneducated is the moronic notion that a Supreme Court decision is unlawful. Better take 9th grade civics again.


Your divorce analogy doesn't work because it's an issue of state's rights, not "a judge doing what he wants". It would most definitely be a failure to perform duty if a California judge or clerk was pulling this stunt because gay marriage is legal in that state BUT IN KENTUCKY gay marriage has a constitutional ban.

But Obergefell and the 14th Amendment trump Kentucky law, a point you have difficulty in grasping. And Davis isn't basing her defiance on Kentucky law or on state's rights, but upon her religious views.


Again, my stance is that SCOTUS violated the 10th and 1st amendments on a political whim.

That's your opinion, but it isn't the law.


The constitution is the highest law, but it allows states to make their own laws based on a higher authority.

Huh? You really need to take that civics class -- you may learn something about the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause. Seriously, your "States' Rights" argument is precisely the same argument that the segregationists made in response to Brown, and it should be obvious (except to the terminally dense) that this doesn't mean anyone who makes the argument is racist. Here, take this test and see if you can distinguish between the statements made in opposition to Brown and those made in response to Obergefell:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/07/06/segregation_or_same_sex_marriage_take_our_quiz.htm l

Look, many people of good faith disagree with Obergefell. Fine. But like it or not, it's the law and to call it "illegal" is pure nonsense based upon abysmal ignorance of the way the law works. Call it wrong, misguided, poorly-reasoned, or politically-correct, result-oriented overreach. But don't be an idiot and call it illegal.

[wizardwatson]

Only in your dreams.



Allowing gays to marry has no effect whatsoever on a hetero marriage.



What is uneducated is the moronic notion that a Supreme Court decision is unlawful. Better take 9th grade civics again.



But Obergefell and the 14th Amendment trump Kentucky law, a point you have difficulty in grasping. And Davis isn't basing her defiance on Kentucky law or on state's rights, but upon her religious views.



That's your opinion, but it isn't the law.



Huh? You really need to take that civics class -- you may learn something about the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause. Seriously, your "States' Rights" argument is precisely the same argument that the segregationists made in response to Brown, and it should be obvious (except to the terminally dense) that this doesn't mean anyone who makes the argument is racist. Here, take this test and see if you can distinguish between the statements made in opposition to Brown and those made in response to Obergefell:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/07/06/segregation_or_same_sex_marriage_take_our_quiz.htm l

Look, many people of good faith disagree with Obergefell. Fine. But like it or not, it's the law and to call it "illegal" is pure nonsense based upon abysmal ignorance of the way the law works. Call it wrong, misguided, poorly-reasoned, or politically-correct, result-oriented overreach. But don't be an idiot and call it illegal.

Yeah, I get it, the law is whatever the Supreme Court says. If they interpret that the moon is made of swiss cheese then the law says it's cheese.

I already answered your segregation argument on another thread, which is the only one you've given.

[JK/SEA]

ok...we got a few pages in this thread now, what have we decided?

[tod evans]

ok...we got a few pages in this thread now, what have we decided?

Folks would rather discuss **** marriage than buckin' the feds...:confused:

[wizardwatson]

Only in your dreams.

I didn't want to repeat myself so I went back to the SCOTUS thread I created when this decision was announced to see if you were discussing it then...

SCOTUS legalizes Gay Marriage - 10th Amendment Obliterated
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?477348-SCOTUS-legalizes-Gay-Marriage-10th-Amendment-Obliterated/

..and you were. And you haven't changed your stance. Consistent I guess.

You fail to acknowledge still that what SCOTUS did was REDEFINE marriage. That's what they did. They didn't "extend" protections, because everyone was able to marry within the confines of the accepted definition. Gays are allowed to get married under the traditional meaning. Gays want to change the meaning to marry another guy or gal. That's a different thing.

If you change the definition unilaterally then, sure, it becomes a 14th amendment issue and in line with racial segregation.

But it's only because the definition is changed simultaneously that this logic applies.

I doubt you will accept that fact, since you haven't in the old thread.

[surf]

probably my last post on this topic (mild background applause)....

to me this is a freedom issue. it's a freedom issue for the gal operating under god's authority in that she is trying to deny certain freedoms, and it's a freedom issue for those that want to be free to marry.

the only workable answer here (and everywhere) is to let freedom rein. (thud - the sound of the mic hitting the floor as I walk away)

[tod evans]

I didn't want to repeat myself so I went back to the SCOTUS thread I created when this decision was announced to see if you were discussing it then...

SCOTUS legalizes Gay Marriage - 10th Amendment Obliterated
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?477348-SCOTUS-legalizes-Gay-Marriage-10th-Amendment-Obliterated/
.

Here's one of my posts from that thread that's in line with this thread;


This might bring fed-gov's power and authority into question.......

And that would be a good thing!

[Sonny Tufts]

You fail to acknowledge still that what SCOTUS did was REDEFINE marriage.

If you think they did, then so did the Loving court. In those states with anti-miscegenation laws marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman of the same race. Interracial couples could not get a marriage license, and the marriages of those who wed in other states weren't recognized.

[wizardwatson]

If you think they did, then so did the Loving court. In those states with anti-miscegenation laws marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman of the same race. Interracial couples could not get a marriage license, and the marriages of those who wed in other states weren't recognized.

If I say the "murder" is actually knocking someone out then I'm wrong.
If I say cutting someone's head off is NOT "murder" then I'm also wrong.

If I add race to the definition of marriage I'm wrong.
If I subtract gender from the definition of marriage I'm also wrong.

That's the objective stance.

Now given that subjectively we do have people who are polygamist or think it's ok to marry same gender the "grey area" should definitely be a state's rights issue and not something that the federal government unilaterally changes for every person in the country.

Like I said, this is your only real argument it seems, and it isn't applicable.

Segregation prevented people from getting married. Traditional marriage doesn't prevent people from getting married.

Marrying "whoever I want" is a different thing. I may want to marry someone else's wife, that doesn't mean I get to ask SCOTUS to nullify another mans marriage because we're "really in love".

[GunnyFreedom]

AP reporting that a judge has just ordered her to jail.

[Occam's Banana]

What is uneducated is the moronic notion that a Supreme Court decision is unlawful. Better take 9th grade civics again.

LMAO. Ya gotta love legal positivism!

After all, where else are you going to see 9th-grade civics classes cited as dispositive of SCOTUS as soi-disant ultimate arbiter of lawfulness?

Chicken, meet egg. Egg, meet chicken ...

[juleswin]

AP reporting that a judge has just ordered her to jail.

The highway robber fighting the street level pick pocket. If it was up to me, I would let both thieves fight each other until a mutual defeat. Couldn't the justices just cut her pay to zero and be done with it?

[tod evans]

AP reporting that a judge has just ordered her to jail.

In before the Romans 13 excuses.....:cool:

[Sonny Tufts]

If I subtract gender from the definition of marriage I'm also wrong.

Why? I've yet to hear a valid reason for not permitting same-sex marriage, and "it's always been that way" hardly qualifies.


Segregation prevented people from getting married. Traditional marriage doesn't prevent people from getting married.

Segregation prevented interracial couples from marrying, and laws mandating "traditional marriage" prevented same-sex couples from marrying. I don't see the difference.

[Sonny Tufts]

After all, where else are you going to see 9th-grade civics classes cited as dispositive of SCOTUS as soi-disant ultimate arbiter of lawfulness?

SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter only in the short run, since even its decisions on constitutional law can be overturned in a number of ways.

[wizardwatson]

Why? I've yet to hear a valid reason for not permitting same-sex marriage, and "it's always been that way" hardly qualifies.

Nature?


Segregation prevented interracial couples from marrying, and laws mandating "traditional marriage" prevented same-sex couples from marrying. I don't see the difference.

Because you've already redefined marriage in your mind. You're not alone, polling shows that a majority of American's have done this as well. However, one of the key factors of this gay marriage issue (in this thread) is that Kentuckians have not.

Recreational pot is legal in a few states now. That doesn't mean the federal government has the right to say recreational pot, or strip clubs, or seatbelt laws, should be enforced in every state.

Anyway, this whole argument is very nuanced. And the mob has already made it's decision and mob rule is pretty much what this country has become. It seems the way everyone wants it is for the Fed's to enumerate the state's powers (which I suppose in the future will simply be how to collect taxes) instead of the Constitutions way of the state's enumerating the fed's powers and everything else will be decided by SCOTUS who changes definitions of words and concepts to suit the will of the majority.

It's a dead horse really. People seem to be on one side or the other. The greys are disappearing as the days go by.

[Occam's Banana]

SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter only in the short run, since even its decisions on constitutional law can be overturned in a number of ways.

Then ipso facto SCOTUS is not the ultimate arbiter. Make up your mind.

What would your 9th-grade civics class textbooks say should SCOTUS rule that that such an attempted overturning is unconstitutional (or otherwise "unlawful")?

After all, you told us earlier that "the ... notion that a Supreme Court decision is unlawful" is "uneducated" and "moronic" ...

[wizardwatson]

Then ipso facto SCOTUS is not the ultimate arbiter. Make up your mind.

What would your 9th-grade civics class textbooks say should SCOTUS rule that that such an attempted overturning is unconstitutional (or otherwise "unlawful")?

After all, you told us earlier that "the ... notion that a Supreme Court decision is unlawful" is "uneducated" and "moronic" ...

Yeah, I said it was "unlawful" in the sense that it was a bad unconstitutional decision. He wants to strawman left and right as if I didn't understand that the "SUPREME" courts decisions carry the weight of the law.

I let it go. It gets boring defending against straw man attacks all day long.

[Christian Liberty]

Its hardly shocking that civics classes are going to teach statism. One more reason to homeschool.

[William Tell]

AP reporting that a judge has just ordered her to jail.

Wow. Remember when everyone was making fun of social conservatives for saying this was coming?

[Sonny Tufts]

What would your 9th-grade civics class textbooks say should SCOTUS rule that that such an attempted overturning is unconstitutional (or otherwise "unlawful")?

Well, let's see just how the Court's decision could be overturned and see if there's any basis at all to declare such a move unconstitutional:

1. The Court could overrule its prior decision, either over time (e.g., Brown overruling Plessy), by some Justices retiring and others changing their minds (e.g., Barnette overruling Gobitis in just over 3 years), or by enlarging the membership of the Court and packing it (the latter was unsuccessfully tried by FDR). Can't see any way any of that is unconstitutional.

2. The Constitution can be amended to overturn the Court's prior ruling. This is extremely rare: it's happened only three times in cases involving rulings on constitutional law (the 11th, 13th-15th, and 16th Amendments). Can't see how that could ever be declared unconstitutional.

There's nothing inconsistent in saying that the Court's decisions are the law and that its decisions can be overturned. The same is true for legislation, but nobody claims that statutes aren't the law simply because they can be repealed.

Now if you're defining the "law" in terms of some Platonic notion of immutable natural law then your objection to legal positivism is well-taken. But if that's where you're coming from then there's no basis for complaining about Obergefell's trampling over States' Rights; I know of no theory of natural rights that enshrines federalism.

[wizardwatson]

Well, let's see just how the Court's decision could be overturned and see if there's any basis at all to declare such a move unconstitutional:

1. The Court could overrule its prior decision, either over time (e.g., Brown overruling Plessy), by some Justices retiring and others changing their minds (e.g., Barnette overruling Gobitis in just over 3 years), or by enlarging the membership of the Court and packing it (the latter was unsuccessfully tried by FDR). Can't see any way any of that is unconstitutional.

2. The Constitution can be amended to overturn the Court's prior ruling. This is extremely rare: it's happened only three times in cases involving rulings on constitutional law (the 11th, 13th-15th, and 16th Amendments). Can't see how that could ever be declared unconstitutional.

There's nothing inconsistent in saying that the Court's decisions are the law and that its decisions can be overturned. The same is true for legislation, but nobody claims that statutes aren't the law simply because they can be repealed.

Now if you're defining the "law" in terms of some Platonic notion of immutable natural law then your objection to legal positivism is well-taken. But if that's where you're coming from then there's no basis for complaining about Obergefell's trampling over States' Rights; I know of no theory of natural rights that enshrines federalism.

Well, the problem is that the prerogative to redefine marriage was never an enumerated power. Since the will of the majority has already played out in SCOTUS, how could we have a constitutional convention to bar the Fed's from doing that in order to overturn it when it's clear the majority already supports it?

That's why "it's extremely rare", and that's why it is so important to enumerate the Fed's powers, because once it executes powers in line with the majority where is the will to overturn it via constitutional amendment?

So really only option 1 is viable.

Now I say it's "unconstitutional" in the same sense that Scalia dissented with. The "right to self expression" is bogus. The 14th amendment was to avoid a "class system" it wasn't to protect some vague idea of "the world isn't allowing me to have dignity according to who I am". 1 man 1 woman marriage did not prevent gays or transgenders or polygamists from entering into it. The states are not required to cater to the desires of every class of person according to their chosen identities.



Now, an argument that "marriage itself" is a violation of the 14th amendment I would almost think has a better philosophical backing. That being that raising a couple in the eyes of the government to a "dignified" position discriminates against those who don't fit the definition. Therefore, marriage recognition by the state should be abolished. That would actually make more sense to me. But adding "another class" of people by slowly eroding the definition makes no sense. Where would you draw the line?

[Sam I am]

Wow. Remember when everyone was making fun of social conservatives for saying this was coming?

For saying what was coming? Going to jail for explicitly violating a court order?

[Sam I am]

The real problem is how difficult it is to simply remove her from her job as county clerk. If she could simple be impeached, all this drama wouldn't be necessary

[LibertyEagle]

She was just sent to jail. :(

https://twitter.com/WKYT/status/639484613849513984/photo/1

http://www.wkyt.com/home/headlines/Rowan-County-clerk-Kim-Davis-to-appear-in-federal-court-Thursday-324091781.html

[Occam's Banana]

Well, let's see just how the Court's decision could be overturned and see if there's any basis at all to declare such a move unconstitutional:

1. The Court could overrule its prior decision, either over time (e.g., Brown overruling Plessy), by some Justices retiring and others changing their minds (e.g., Barnette overruling Gobitis in just over 3 years), or by enlarging the membership of the Court and packing it (the latter was unsuccessfully tried by FDR). Can't see any way any of that is unconstitutional.

2. The Constitution can be amended to overturn the Court's prior ruling. This is extremely rare: it's happened only three times in cases involving rulings on constitutional law (the 11th, 13th-15th, and 16th Amendments). Can't see how that could ever be declared unconstitutional.

There's nothing inconsistent in saying that the Court's decisions are the law and that its decisions can be overturned. The same is true for legislation, but nobody claims that statutes aren't the law simply because they can be repealed.

None of this addresses my point or answers my question. ("What would your 9th-grade civics class textbooks say should SCOTUS rule that such an attempted overturning is unconstitutional (or otherwise 'unlawful')?" - emphasis added.)

You stated that it is "uneducated" and "moronic" to hold "the ... notion that a Supreme Court decision is unlawful."

If SCOTUS ruled (for whatever reason) that an attempted overtuning of one of its decisions (regardless of how such an ostensible "overturning" might have occurred) was "unconstitutional" (or otherwise "unlawful"), then - by your own assertion - such a ruling must necessarily be "lawful" (i.e., not "unlawful" - since to conclude otherwise would be "uneducated" and "moronic"). But as a justification for the attempted "overturning" of such a ruling, to make reference to anything (such as the Constitution, for example) beyond or apart from the plain, unqualified fact of the SCOTUS ruling (regardless of the ruling's basis) must necessarily entail that it is possible for SCOTUS rulings to be "unlawful." (IOW: If the standard by which a ruling is to be deemed "lawful" is "whatever SCOTUS decides," then SCOTUS can on that basis "overturn" any attempt to "overturn" any of its decisions - but if the standard by which a ruling is to be deemed "lawful" is something other than or in addition to "whatever SCOTUS decides," then it must be possible for SCOTUS decisions to be "unlawful" ...)

The only way around this is either (1) to equivocate upon the meaning of the term "(un)lawful," or (2) to be reduced to asserting that "(un)lawful" merely means "whatever some group (such as SCOTUS or those who would 'overturn' SCOTUS) is able to arbitrarily decree (and subsequently uphold or enforce)." (And in the latter case, a SCOTUS decision could be rendered effectively "unlawful" merely by the refusal of the executive to carry out or implement the SCOTUS decision - as Andrew Jackson did when he essentially told the Marshall court to go pound sand in re Worcester v. Georgia.)


Now if you're defining the "law" in terms of some Platonic notion of immutable natural law then your objection to legal positivism is well-taken. But if that's where you're coming from then there's no basis for complaining about Obergefell's trampling over States' Rights; I know of no theory of natural rights that enshrines federalism.

The nature of my objection to legal positivism has nothing to do with how I define "the law" (which would certainly not be Platonic in any case, as I am not a Platonist).

It has entirely to do with the fundamental, ultimate and inescapable nature of legal positivism - namely, that it is tritely truistic ("the law is the law") and/or vacuously circular ("'the law' is whatever the 'officially' designated expositors of 'the law' say 'the law' is - and whatever the 'officially' designated expositors of 'the law' say 'the law' is is 'the law'"). My rejection of legal positivism is entirely due to its own inherent demerits as an exercise in recursively self-justifying hand-waving ...

[Lucille]

The judge said she left him with no alternative but to jail her, since fines alone would not change her mind (http://www.aol.com/article/2015/09/03/the-latest-judge-orders-defiant-kentucky-clerk-to-jail/21231463/).

Check it out. This judge is a precog.

[wizardwatson]

Check it out. This judge is a precog.

He's making an example out of her as a deterrent. He said that explicitly.

He claims that her supporters will just pay the fines probably so he's punishing her to strike fear into those who support her.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/03/rowan-county-ky-court-clerk-marriage-licenses-gays/71635794/

Bunning agreed and said fines for Davis, who makes $80,000 a year, would not be enough to ensure that she would follow his orders. He also raised concerns that supporters, whom she said are raising money for her, would pay any fine he levied against her, hampering its force.

"I don't do this lightly," he said. "It's necessary in this case."

Maybe he should just cane her. :rolleyes:

[Southron]

The judge should be the one in jail.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

The real problem is how difficult it is to simply remove her from her job as county clerk. If she could simple be impeached, all this drama wouldn't be necessary

I think she can be impeached. It wouldn't be simple though, because she'd have to be impeached by the legislature, which represents the wishes of the people of the state. Neither the legislature nor the people support the the SCOTUS ruling, and there's no particular reason to think there would be a majority willing to impeach to her.

[wizardwatson]

The judge should be the one in jail.

Well, it's all about intent really, and about hypocrisy.

I think she is less hypocritical than SCOTUS so I'm kind of on her side and also against the SCOTUS decision.

But when Bree Newsome took down the Confederate Flag I was on her side too in a weird way, but actually against the Confederate Flag mandate.

Because in Bree's case I was simply amazed that she was willing to go to jail to make a point. She had spirit. She was wrong in my opinion but I felt her heart was in the right place at least.

Anyway, I find it kind of odd actually that Bree took down that flag the day after gay marriage was legalized. That flag to me actually represents "truth" in a way. And the fact that it's modeled after St. Andrews Cross seems almost prophetic.

Gay marriage is kind of a sign that this country detached from God to me, and the Confederate Flag issue was kind of a rejection of truth. All signs point to not good for this country.

Shemitah incoming! :p

[Tywysog Cymru]

I think the LGBT lobby might have just made a critical mistake. Their strategy has revolved around slowly sneaking the agenda in. For instance, in 2008 the people of California were not ready for gay marriage, and that was a major setback when Proposition 8 was passed. Maybe a slight majority supports SSM, but a lot of these people were against it only a few years ago, and could change their minds again. The American people are not yet at the point where they can tolerate people being thrown in jail. The whole thing could backfire.

[Krugminator2]

I am really surprised at these answers.

If she denied people concealed carry permits or even gun permits on the grounds that guns are evil, would you defend her? If not, how is this different?

Let's say it is 2008 she was elected in a blue state with tough gun control laws and the Heller decision came down. She said she wasn't going to abide by the Heller decision. Would you stand up for her if she said the Supreme Court is terrorizing local authority? If not,you are a huge hypocrite.

[ChiefJustice]

I think the LGBT lobby might have just made a critical mistake. Their strategy has revolved around slowly sneaking the agenda in. For instance, in 2008 the people of California were not ready for gay marriage, and that was a major setback when Proposition 8 was passed. Maybe a slight majority supports SSM, but a lot of these people were against it only a few years ago, and could change their minds again. The American people are not yet at the point where they can tolerate people being thrown in jail. The whole thing could backfire.
Good she can sit in jail until she resigns or respects people's legal rights. LGBT individuals have the right to marriage liscences.

The real suppressor of liberty in this case is Kim Davis herself.

[William Tell]

I think the LGBT lobby might have just made a critical mistake. Their strategy has revolved around slowly sneaking the agenda in. For instance, in 2008 the people of California were not ready for gay marriage, and that was a major setback when Proposition 8 was passed. Maybe a slight majority supports SSM, but a lot of these people were against it only a few years ago, and could change their minds again. The American people are not yet at the point where they can tolerate people being thrown in jail. The whole thing could backfire. I hope it does.

[jllundqu]

I am really surprised at these answers.

If she denied people concealed carry permits or even gun permits on the grounds that guns are evil, would you defend her? If not, how is this different?

Let's say it is 2008 she was elected in a blue state with tough gun control laws and the Heller decision came down. She said she wasn't going to abide by the Heller decision. Would you stand up for her if she said the Supreme Court is terrorizing local authority? If not,you are a huge hypocrite.

THIS ^^^^ Exactly the argument I've been making. Have some intellectual honesty and integrity for crying out loud. If she didn't agree with gay marriage... quit. No one is forcing her to do anything against her faith. She can either do what is legally required of her, or suffer the consequences... she is no hero. Especially given her many divorces/adultery/etc etc....

Jail is too much though....

[Tywysog Cymru]

Good she can sit in jail until she resigns or respects people's legal rights. LGBT individuals have the right to marriage liscences.

The real suppressor of liberty in this case is Kim Davis herself.

Well, the government shouldn't have started handing out marriage licenses to begin with...

But LGBT individuals had access to marriage licenses before. A gay man, if he really wanted to, was able to get married to a woman in the early hours of June 26, 2015 in Kentucky, Michigan, Texas, or anywhere else. Then, shortly before my lunch break that day, the Supreme Court decided that the old universal definition of marriage was outdated because it hurt peoples' feelings. Now everyone can marry someone of the same gender. The rules apply to everyone equally either way.

[tod evans]

I am really surprised at these answers.

If she denied people concealed carry permits or even gun permits on the grounds that guns are evil, would you defend her? If not, how is this different?

Let's say it is 2008 she was elected in a blue state with tough gun control laws and the Heller decision came down. She said she wasn't going to abide by the Heller decision. Would you stand up for her if she said the Supreme Court is terrorizing local authority? If not,you are a huge hypocrite.

I'm all for any county employee making a public stand against the feds for any reason.

I just wish the Evangelicals would quit shaking in their panties and mumbling about Romans 13..

[Sonny Tufts]

but if the standard by which a ruling is to be deemed "lawful" is something other than or in addition to "whatever SCOTUS decides," then it must be possible for SCOTUS decisions to be "unlawful" ...)

But what is that standard? If you say it's the Constitution, then you're elevating your interpretation of that document over that of SCOTUS. What makes your interpretation more lawful?


The only way around this is is either (1) to equivocate upon the meaning of the term "(un)lawful," or (2) to be reduced to asserting that "(un)lawful" merely means "whatever some group (such as SCOTUS or those who would 'overturn' SCOTUS) is able to arbitrarily decree (and subsequently uphold or enforce)."

Why would you assume the decree is necessarily arbitrary? Are you suggesting that the Justices are intellectually dishonest and that they ignore precedent and just make things up?


It has entirely to do with the fundamental, ultimate and inescapable nature of legal positivism - namely, that it is tritely truistic ("the law is the law") and/or vacuously circular ("'the law' is whatever the 'officially' designated expositors of 'the law' say 'the law' is - and whatever the 'officially' designated expositors of 'the law' say 'the law' is is 'the law'"). My rejection of legal positivism is entirely due to its own inherent demerits as an exercise in recursively self-justifying hand-waving ...

What other definition of "law" would you suggest?

[wizardwatson]

He's making an example out of her as a deterrent. He said that explicitly.

He claims that her supporters will just pay the fines probably so he's punishing her to strike fear into those who support her.

Maybe he should just cane her. :rolleyes:

Since they won't replace her, they still need her authority apparently to issue the licenses. They offered to release her if she agrees to allow her employees to issue the licenses. She told them no.

Obey damn you! :rolleyes:


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html

Clerk Rejects Proposal to Let Deputies Issue Marriage Licenses

ASHLAND, Ky. — A defiant county clerk rejected a proposal that would have allowed her deputies to grant same-sex marriage licenses, hours after she was sent to jail by a federal judge for disobeying a court order.

Through her lawyer, the clerk, Kim Davis of Rowan County, said she would not agree to allow the licenses to be issued under her authority as county clerk. Had she consented, the judge would have considered releasing her from custody.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

This is the first of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. She should have stuck to this rather than "God told me to":


1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

[Sonny Tufts]

Since they won't replace her, they still need her authority apparently to issue the licenses. They offered to release her if she agrees to allow her employees to issue the licenses. She told them no.

This raises an interesting point -- if it's true that her deputies can't issue the licenses without her approval and if she refuses to allow the deputies to issue them (the news report said that 5 of the 6 deputies were agreeable to issuing the licenses), then isn't she using the authority of her office to impose her religious views on her deputies?

One other point: Judge Bunning noted that Davis had taken an oath when she was sworn in. The oath goes as follows:

"I, _____, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of _____ County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”

If her religious beliefs can't allow her to honor this oath she must resign.

[Tywysog Cymru]

I hope it does.

I know that it will eventually, if Christ doesn't return first that is. The question is when. The whole thing is so ridiculous that people 200 years from now will probably be laughing at how stupid our society was. And it's not just that our society tolerates homosexuality, it's that we've combined it with social justice and it's been ruled as equal to heterosexuality. Many Romans and Greeks were open homosexuals (Sappho, Nero, Elagabulus), and some African cultures tolerated it historically (Mwanga II of Buganda), but those cultures never placed it on an equal footing with the natural family and I don't think it was ever called "marriage." What they advocate is so contrary to what is natural that it can not last. It's sort of reminiscent of Communism in Eastern Europe, a radical social experiment was horrible while it last, but was destined to come crashing down from the start.

[TheCount]

Wow. Remember when everyone was making fun of social conservatives for saying this was coming?

Social conservatives said that the government would persecute them for their religion. That is not what is happening. Instead, this is an example of a social conservative using government as a tool to persecute others. In other words, business as usual.

[idiom]

If she was refusing the marriage license because one of the applicants was black and the other white, or god forbid, mexican, this forum would be completely cheering her on.

The bigots, cuz well they are bigots, and the rest of you because its probably still legal for her to do so.


Want I really want is to hear one more 'social conservative' tell me how sodom burned because it was filled with homosexuals and America awaits the same fate. Bullshit. It burned because God couldn't find 10 righteous people in the whole city.

Now the fact that you can't find 10 righteous people in your church or in the whole social conservative movement doesn't mean there aren't ten righteous people in America.

[erowe1]

One other point: Judge Bunning noted that Davis had taken an oath when she was sworn in. The oath goes as follows:

"I, _____, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of _____ County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”

If her religious beliefs can't allow her to honor this oath she must resign.

Is there any evidence that she has done anything in violation of this oath?

[erowe1]

Want I really want is to hear one more 'social conservative' tell me how sodom burned because it was filled with homosexuals and America awaits the same fate. Bullshit. It burned because God couldn't find 10 righteous people in the whole city.



6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; 7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Jude 6-7

[wizardwatson]

This raises an interesting point -- if it's true that her deputies can't issue the licenses without her approval and if she refuses to allow the deputies to issue them (the news report said that 5 of the 6 deputies were agreeable to issuing the licenses), then isn't she using the authority of her office to impose her religious views on her deputies?

One other point: Judge Bunning noted that Davis had taken an oath when she was sworn in. The oath goes as follows:

"I, _____, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of _____ County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”

If her religious beliefs can't allow her to honor this oath she must resign.

I suppose she's anchoring on the "malfeasance" point.

In this thread...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?481516-CNN-Rand-Paul-Talks-Migrants-Kentucky-Clerk-Ruling-Trump-Syria

...Rand gives a very nuanced and insightful opinion on the matter in the first 3 minutes of that video. Basically saying "what is the significance of her signing it". He says why can't they contract and then she files it? Basically saying that her signing the license makes it a different matter. But also pointing out that this is precisely the issue. Who is it that's "witnessing" the marriage? Because it seems by signing it she's the witness. Anyway, these things aren't discussed and the fed's are just forcing this down everyone's throat. That's what he points to as the problem (drawing attention to this being a state's rights issue).

And Ted Cruz's thread speaks to your argument about oath violating. There's lots of other cases of people snubbing federal law and many of those elected officials aren't being hauled off to jail.

Now there's a judge in Tennessee refusing to hear divorce cases "until SCOTUS can clarify what a divorce is". Basically he's saying if SCOTUS is redefining "marriage" unilaterally, then he can't be sure he's defined "divorce" properly either.

The fact that SCOTUS used flimsy justification for this earth shaking change will only embolden people (maybe) when they find a protest mechanism that works. And as Rand points out this will ultimately come to a shutdown of marriage altogether.

[phill4paul]

And as Rand points out this will ultimately come to a shutdown of marriage altogether.

Let's hope. The government courts need to focus on things that bring in revenue. Like non-violent offenses.

[adissa]

http://i.imgur.com/7YbpwK5.png




She does not have a moral objection. He has a bigoted objection which she is trying to back-justify.LOL!!

[Tywysog Cymru]

A comment on a TAC article: (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/kim-davis-political-prisoner-martyr/)


What, exactly, does Kim Davis hope to accomplish with her defiance?
Her defiance is irrational, similar to that man in Tiananmen Square who stood before a column of tanks, daring a ruthless State to crush him. Yes, it may be futile, but it is heroic.

[Brett85]

http://i.imgur.com/7YbpwK5.png

She only recently became a Christian. All of those things happened before she became a Christian. So I don't see your point. She's admitted that she did a lot of things she isn't proud of before she became a Christian.

[wizardwatson]

Let's hope. The government courts need to focus on things that bring in revenue. Like non-violent offenses.

I'm actually not against it really. Not philosophically. As I pointed out in post #162 one could make a reasonable argument that marriage infers a "title of nobility" in some when others aren't eligible "in some way" AND THEN appeal to the 14th amendment. But appealing to the 14th as a reason to redefine to "add a class" of people to marriage and then use the 14th amendment to justify enforcing it and throwing people in jail is some weird circular reasoning. Appealing to the 14th to outlaw marriage seems more defendable.

Of course I think it's all baloney at root, but if we're going to play "rationalize our way to get what we want" outlawing marriage is less retarded.

[wizardwatson]

A comment on a TAC article: (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/kim-davis-political-prisoner-martyr/)

What, exactly, does Kim Davis hope to accomplish with her defiance?
Her defiance is irrational, similar to that man in Tiananmen Square who stood before a column of tanks, daring a ruthless State to crush him. Yes, it may be futile, but it is heroic.

I agree for the most part. God put her hillbilly butt in the spotlight not so much to show her a hero though as much as to shine the light in these last days on hypocritical America and her completely incompetent and fully retarded legal system.

[phill4paul]

I'm actually not against it really. Not philosophically. As I pointed out in post #162 one could make a reasonable argument that marriage infers a "title of nobility" in some when others aren't eligible "in some way" AND THEN appeal to the 14th amendment. But appealing to the 14th as a reason to redefine to "add a class" of people to marriage and then use the 14th amendment to justify enforcing it and throwing people in jail is some weird circular reasoning. Appealing to the 14th to outlaw marriage seems more defendable.

Of course I think it's all baloney at root, but if we're going to play "rationalize our way to get what we want" outlawing marriage is less retarded.

Less retarded in a system full on retarded is better than full on retarded.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[Brett85]

If she's now a Christian, shouldn't she be returning to her first husband ... or at least exiting her current pseudo-marital, adulterous relationship. I'm not saying this with any certainty, but that's the way I've heard it's supposed to be. It's great she's been forgiven, but isn't she continuing with the sin? Or does she get to write off the first few marriages because the husbands weren't Christian enough?

No, the Bible actually teaches that it's an abomination for a husband to remarry his wife after he's divorced her.

Deuteronomy 24: 4

"Then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance."

[wizardwatson]

Another wizard original for Kim Davis. I'm also reposting my confederate flag comic as I feel they are related in spirit. Hope you like!

http://i.imgur.com/iZOVfsU.png

http://i.imgur.com/jiT1eaO.jpg

[idiom]

Jude 6-7


Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?" He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."

Genesis 18:32

Oh look I can quote shit too. Its the reading for content that is important.

[wizardwatson]

So I went to post my meme on twitter #KimDavis thread, and right there was somebody tweeting "If you want to witness the hate of the LGBT community, go to #KimDavis".

After viewing a couple hundred tweets I have to agree. It's another zombie hate fest akin to the confederate flag debacle. So I feel even more justified in linking these two things in my images above. The prevailing jab is "I hope she gets raped in jail."

I definitely disagree with a lot of people at RPF but at least there's some level of respect. The hate-filled deluge on twitter is a sad state of affairs. Nobody has any real point. Just "Fuck You!!! We won this time bitches!!!"

This nation is choking on pride.

[Anti Federalist]

Wait, what about Romans 13?

I thought all government was ordained by god and must be obeyed?

http://i.imgur.com/8VkDHlf.jpg

[Dianne]

Wait, what about Romans 13?

I thought all government was ordained by god and must be obeyed?

http://i.imgur.com/8VkDHlf.jpg

Did Franklin Graham really say that? I obey one, and one only.. The Lord Jesus Christ.

[johnwk]

Today federal Judge David L. Bunning of the United States District Court decided to put Kim Davis of Rowan County, Ky., in jail for refusing to issue same sex marriage licenses. SEE: Clerk in Kentucky Chooses Jail Over Deal on Same-Sex Marriage (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html)

Judge Bunning said. “If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.” Unfortunately the Judge’s order was based upon a Supreme Court opinion that the 14th Amendment forbids distinctions in law based upon sex and thus, requires the various States to issue same sex marriage licenses. So, Judge Bunning decided to choose the Supreme Court’s opinion instead of the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment!

But the irrefutable fact is, the 14th Amendment does not prohibit by its text, nor was it intended by those who framed and ratified the amendment, to prohibit a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex. The idea that it does prohibit distinctions based upon sex was invented by Justice Ginsburg who engaged in judicial tyranny in the Virginia Military Academy (VMI) case.

In delivering the Court’s opinion in the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=U20026) case, decided June 26, 1996, which commanded the Institute to accept women by citing the 14th Amendment as forbidding sex discrimination, Ginsburg pointed to previous Supreme Court rulings and a court invented test unknown to our founding fathers or the 39th Congress, and asserted a party seeking to uphold government action making a distinction based upon sex must establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" In addition, Ginsburg noted, “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”

But to this day, neither Justice Ginsburg nor any Supreme Court Justice has ever established by the text of the 14th Amendment, nor its legislative intent as expressed during the debates of the 39th Congress which framed the amendment, that its purpose was to forbid distinctions based upon gender.

The unavoidable truth is, Justice Ginsburg couldn’t establish this prohibition because time and again during the debates when the 14th Amendment was being framed the intended prohibition against discrimination was identified as being limited to discrimination based upon “race, color, or former condition of slavery”, and was only intended to apply in a very narrow area protecting the civil, not political rights, of Blacks: “to make and enforce contracts, to sue...to inherit, purchase...property as was then enjoyed by white citizens. “Congress did not assume...to adjust what may be called the social rights of men...but only to declare and vindicate these fundamental rights. ” See the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3,22 (1883) for confirmation.

As a matter of fact one of the supporters of the 14th Amendment during the 39th Congress, summarized the very purpose of the amendment as stated by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases. He says:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

It should also be noted that Senator Bingham the Amendment's principal author, emphasized “the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen . . . is in the States and not in the federal government. I have sought to effect no change in that respect.” See Cong. Globe page 1292

Bingham goes on to say:

“I have always believed that the protection in time of peace within the States of all the rights of person and citizen was of the powers reserved to the States. And so I still believe.”

The argument that the wording in the 14th Amendment: (a)“all persons”, (b)"No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States.", (c) "[N]or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", as being evidence the amendment was intended to forbid distinctions based upon sex and intended to be a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination as the court falsely pretends today, falls flat on its face when reading the words of the 15th Amendment which was intended to enlarge the prohibition against race-based legislation __enlarging it to forbid discrimination at the voting booth based upon “race, color, or previous condition of servitude“ ___ while the Constitution was still silent with regard to distinctions based upon gender and/or prohibiting the right to vote to be denied based upon sex.


The argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits state legislation which makes distinctions based upon gender, becomes even weaker when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to forbid sex discrimination [the discrimination mentioned by Ginsburg] but only extend the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “sex”

If the 14th Amendment prohibited every kind of discrimination as we are today led to believe by certain members of our federal judiciary, including discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg alleged in the VMI Case and our Supreme Court recently alleged in the same sex marriage case, then why was it necessary for the above mentioned amendments [the 15th and 19th] to be added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment?

Finally, why would there have been a proposed and so-call equal rights amendment attempted to be added to the Constitution of the United States in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination, which fell short of the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibited discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg alleges in the VMI case?

The bottom line is, a number of our Supreme Court Justices have engaged in judicial tyranny and have supplanted their personal political whims and fancies as being the “rule of law” in spite of what the text and legislative intent of our Constitution commands. And now, we have an American citizen, Kim Davis of Rowan County sitting in jail as a political prisoner. Although her argument that her religious beliefs prevent her from issuing a marriage license to a same sex couple is without merit because she is free to quit her job and be true to her religious beliefs, she is still sitting in jail because five Justices on our Supreme Court used their office of public trust to impose their political beliefs upon the entire population of the United States, and for this they ought to be punished with no punishment left off the table.

JWK




"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

[wizardwatson]

Wait, what about Romans 13?

I thought all government was ordained by god and must be obeyed?

http://i.imgur.com/8VkDHlf.jpg

You know I saw Romans 13 on a cardboard cut-out in a news article photo of the recent gas station attack by Shannon whats-his-face. And I'd have to say, yes, indeed it would apply in his case because all evidence points to him being an honest man.

But in general no, Romans 13 doesn't mean you have let John Q. Law off the hook.


Commentary on Romans 13 from biblehub:

http://biblehub.com/romans/13-2.htm

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power,.... The office of magistracy, and such as are lawfully placed in it, and rightly exercise it; who denies that there is, or ought to be any such order among men, despises it, and opposes it, and withdraws himself from it, and will not be subject to it in any form:

resisteth the ordinance of God, the will and appointment of God, whose pleasure it is that there should be such an office, and that men should be subject to it. This is not to be understood, as if magistrates were above the laws, and had a lawless power to do as they will without opposition; for they are under the law, and liable to the penalty of it, in case of disobedience, as others; and when they make their own will a law, or exercise a lawless tyrannical power, in defiance of the laws of God, and of the land, to the endangering of the lives, liberties, and properties of subjects, they may be resisted, as Saul was by the people of Israel, when he would have took away the life of Jonathan for the breach of an arbitrary law of his own, and that too without the knowledge of it, 1 Samuel 14:45; but the apostle is speaking of resisting magistrates in the right discharge of their office, and in the exercise of legal power and authority:

[Anti Federalist]

Did Franklin Graham really say that? I obey one, and one only.. The Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes, that is a legitimate and confirmed quote posted by Franklin Graham.

[RonPaulIsGreat]

During times like this it's important to step back and ask what would Caitlyn Jenner do?

[Ender]

Pretty much my take:



He Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune
Laurence M. Vance
Email Print
FacebookTwitter
Share

Butler Schaffer’s recent post reminds me that I need to blog about the Kentucky clerk who is refusing to issue marriage licenses. Any marriage license—not just licenses to same-sex couples. Several Christians have e-mailed me about this so what follows is based on what I have said to them, with additions.

Unlike some conservatives (see here, but also here and here), I am not enthusiastic about the actions of the Kentucky clerk. Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, an elected official, quit issuing all marriage licenses after the recent Supreme Court gay marriage decision. Gay (and straight) couples sued. A U.S. District Court judge ordered her to issue the licenses, a U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the order, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to intervene. Davis maintains she is acting under God’s authority, and said: “To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.”

I have three observations. First and foremost: He who pays the piper calls the tune. If you are going to work for the state, then you do what the state says or you quit. Given the history of U.S. military aggression, you don’t join the military and then say it is unconstitutional for you to be sent to Afghanistan so you should be assigned a desk job in Ohio. If you work for a state or the national park service and you are told to cut down an old tree that you think should remain standing, you cut it down or you quit your job. I could go on and on. For example, a Christian science teacher at a public school who rejects evolution but is told to teach it anyway can do one of two things: teach evolution or quit his job.

Second: the fact that Davis feels that issuing marriage licenses goes against her religion or violates her conscience is no defense. What if someone believes that one or more of the following legal marriages is against his religion or conscience?

A previous marriage that ended in divorce for one or both parties.
Inter-racial marriage.
Marriage between distant cousins.
Marriage between Jew and Gentile.
Marriage between Christian and atheist.
Marriage between Catholic and Protestant.
Marriage between an old man and a young woman.
Marriage between a couple who just met.
Marriage between a couple who met online.

Should he also be allowed to not issue marriage licenses in these circumstances?

Third: Davis is a fraud who doesn’t practice anything like a biblical view of marriage. She has been married four times and divorced three times.

Update: Davis has been put in jail. This is totally unnecessary. She should just be fired. Not sure how you get rid of an elected official in Kentucky.

Too bad Christians in the military don’t refuse to do their jobs and have to be put in jail. And too bad Davis doesn’t refuse to issue licenses because no one should have to get a license from the state to get married.


https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/he-who-pays-the-piper-calls-the-tune-2/

[idiom]

http://i.imgur.com/ji7mHJU.jpg

[Brett85]

http://i.imgur.com/ji7mHJU.jpg

In other words, you can't work for the government and be a Christian. Good to know.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[GunnyFreedom]

What it amounts to is you can't work for the government and discriminate against homosexuals in your governmental duties. Nor can you discriminate against homosexuals when conducting commerce in the public realm.

But if I had known that Christians wouldn't be able to occupy government positions under these circumstances, then I would have been pushing much harder for gay marriage. With over 80% of governmental positions being occupied by Christians, what better way to bring government to its knees.
She was refusing straight marriage licenses too.

[tod evans]

In other words, you can't work for the government and be a Christian. Good to know.

TC,

There are Christians who accept ***** just as there are sects of other religions that do.

Making a blanket statement about "Christians" is disingenuous.

Now if you would have specified Fundamental Evangelicals.....

Please don't claim to speak for Christians as a group, you're doing yourself and Christianity a disservice.

(I am already aware that you consider Evangelicalism the only "true" Christian" but the rest of the world doesn't and you come across as foolish and myopic by refusing to accept that)

[Brett85]

TC,

There are Christians who accept ***** just as there are sects of other religions that do.

Making a blanket statement about "Christians" is disingenuous.

Now if you would have specified Fundamental Evangelicals.....

Please don't claim to speak for Christians as a group, you're doing yourself and Christianity a disservice.

(I am already aware that you consider Evangelicalism the only "true" Christian" but the rest of the world doesn't and you come across as foolish and myopic by refusing to accept that)

What verses in the Bible do these "other Christians" cite as evidence for their belief that there's nothing morally wrong with homosexuality?

[tod evans]

What verses in the Bible do these "other Christians" cite as evidence for their belief that there's nothing morally wrong with homosexuality?

Start another thread!

[Brett85]

Start another thread!

Well, it seemed like you wanted to discuss that issue here, as you brought up that particular aspect of this subject.

[erowe1]

Genesis 18:32

Oh look I can quote shit too. Its the reading for content that is important.

You can quote things. But you can't quote something to back up the false claim you made. Why not just admit you made a mistake?

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[erowe1]

Well, in this case it was actually she who sent her husband away - but I suppose that's merely a technicality ;)
.... Does Mark 10:9 (let no man separate) osolete the divorce rules in Deuteronomy

Still, I thought that accepting Christ meant that she was forgiven for all of that. If Christ has forgiven her then shouldn't her original husband take her back?

Regardles, in lieu of returning to her first husband, shouldn't she be refraining from continuing in the illicit marriage she's in now? Or does her husband backlog get wiped clean and she gets to start over?

You are correct. The NT does take precedence. She and one of her former husbands should have reconciled with one another, rather than going on to marry someone else (1 Cor 7:11).

As to your last 2 questions, now that she is in another marriage. That's that. She has to remain in this marriage.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[erowe1]

So it probably boils down to, "You can't work for the government and not perform your assigned paper-pushing duties"

Issuing same-sex marriage licenses is not one of her assigned duties.

[Tywysog Cymru]

What it amounts to is you can't work for the government and discriminate against homosexuals in your governmental duties. Nor can you discriminate against homosexuals when conducting commerce in the public realm.

But if I had known that Christians wouldn't be able to occupy government positions under these circumstances, then I would have been pushing much harder for gay marriage. With over 80% of governmental positions being occupied by Christians, what better way to bring government to its knees.

The majority are probably cultural Christians. Cultural Christianity manifests itself politically in many ways including support for slavery, support for segregation, support for war, support of abortion, and support of gay marriage.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[erowe1]

TC,

There are Christians who accept ***** just as there are sects of other religions that do.

Making a blanket statement about "Christians" is disingenuous.

Now if you would have specified Fundamental Evangelicals.....

Please don't claim to speak for Christians as a group, you're doing yourself and Christianity a disservice.

(I am already aware that you consider Evangelicalism the only "true" Christian" but the rest of the world doesn't and you come across as foolish and myopic by refusing to accept that)

The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches don't accept same-sex marriage either.

I know you can find professing Jews who don't believe in circumcision. But just because such things exist, that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with generalizing Judaism as both accepting and requiring circumcision of males.

Viewed globally and historically, any professing Christians who deny that homosexual sex is a sin would amount to an insignificant aberration. And it does Christianity, as well as the truth in general, a disservice to pretend that Brett85's characterization of Christianity as disapproving of same-sex marriage was inaccurate.

[erowe1]

Issuing marriage licenses is ... she's also refusing to issue opposite-sex licenses ... and is, in fact, being sued by some of heterosexual constituents for not issuing a marriage license to them.

I haven't really read the news stories. Is there some mitigating factor that explains why she refused to issue those other marriage licenses?

[Sonny Tufts]

I haven't really read the news stories. Is there some mitigating factor that explains why she refused to issue those other marriage licenses?

I can only speculate as to her real reason, but if she issued them only to hetero couples she would violate her oath to perform her duties "without favor, affection or partiality".

[Sam I am]

THIS ^^^^ Exactly the argument I've been making. Have some intellectual honesty and integrity for crying out loud. If she didn't agree with gay marriage... quit. No one is forcing her to do anything against her faith. She can either do what is legally required of her, or suffer the consequences... she is no hero. Especially given her many divorces/adultery/etc etc....

Jail is too much though....

This is just hearsay from reddit, so take it with a grain of salt, but I was under the impression that she would be released from jail if either she quit, or if she started issuing marriage licenses again.

[tod evans]

Thread for discussing *****-n-religion;

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?481551-Christianity-and-homosexual-quot-marriage-quot

[erowe1]

I can only speculate as to her real reason, but if she issued them only to hetero couples she would violate her oath to perform her duties "without favor, affection or partiality".

If so, I think that harms her case. Not issuing marriage licenses at all is to neglect her duties. But per the laws of Kentucky, these do not include same-sex couples. When she took that job, the law itself specifically defined her duties that way, and the Kentucky legislature has not changed it.

[Ender]

Thread for discussing *****-n-religion;

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?481551-Christianity-and-homosexual-quot-marriage-quot

This thread has gotten pretty ridiculous.

First- the gov has no business in marriage.

I repeat:

First- the gov has no business in marriage.

Government got into the marriage business to prevent interracial marriages. Now it has also become an income racket and a way to own your kiddies.

Second- what consenting adults do is THEIR business; if you are not being forced into joining in, whether it is sex, drugs. or any other victim-less "crime", why should you care?

Third- we should be supporting the freedom of ALL people, not just those we agree with- as long as their actions are lawful and do not impede on OTHERS freedoms. (And please understand the difference between "lawful" and "legal"; some things are "legal" but are "unlawful" according to inalienable rights.)

If a woman truly wants to wear a burka- she should be allowed.
If a family wants to live off the grid- they should be allowed.
If someone wants to refuse medical treatment- they should be allowed.
If a gay couple wants to join in a life-long union- they should be allowed.

Some Christians have a problem letting gays use the word: marriage; well, then change the word.

Fourth- I am from California; I have known many gays and I do not know of anyone that willingly chose to be gay.
I have known devout Christian gays who chose to be celibate.
I have known gays who chose to marry the opposite sex because it was "right". And suffered with guilt all their lives, even though they were faithful.
I had a wonderful gay friend who committed suicide because he could not deal with his Christian beliefs and his gayness.

Five- True Christianity is based on the love of God and one's fellowman.
Christians should believe in Free Will and Liberty for all to choose their own path, whether they be another Christian denomination, Muslim, Jew, Gay, Harlot, Communist, etc.

It is not my duty to condemn- it is my duty to love and to teach by example.

And as an American Christian, it is my duty to support the freedom of all Americans, whether I believe in their way of life or not.

[DamianTV]

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within limits drawn around us
by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law", because law is
often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

-Thomas Jefferson

I am going to have to agree with TJ on this.

If for some reason I had the power to force people, I'd have to try to look fairly at both sides of the situation. Either denying the gay couple PERMISSION to marry, or FORCE the Clerk to issue the Marriage License would be an Infringement of the Rights of one, or the Rights of the Other. Thus, I think the real solution doesnt lie within forcing one side or the other and we have to dig deeper.

My conclusion is to get Govt out of the Business of Marriage.

Permission and Rights are POLAR OPPOSITES. When ever a person has to get a License, that is a form of asking Permission. Thus, requiring couples to get a License is a form of converting Rights into Permissions, and in order for True Liberty to be addressed, the Permission has to be elevated back into a Right. No more of this "Mommy may I" bullshit. So lets look just for a moment at a very very generic reason Marriage Licenses were initially issued. Marriage Licenses historically started during our dark history when Black Slaves were expected to seek permission to marry. It was intended to restrict Interracial Marriages because Rights were based upon Skin Color and a mixed race child being half White and half Black confused the numbers of 2/3rds of a Vote. Instead of treating black men as men with Rights (just men, women had no voting rights at all), some black men were given the conditional priviledge of having their votes counted as 2/3rds of a vote, not even a full vote. Basically, only Property Owners had the Right to Vote. We did not have Equal Rights. And Mixed Race made the topic that much more difficult, thus, marriages between non whites were handled with Licenses. This allowed abuse of granting permissions to occur, converting Rights into Permissions. But as is the case in any authority granted to the Govt, the scope of abuse soon extends to all people. As a result, all couples were expected to "apply for Marriage Licenses" or ASK PERMISSION to marry.

But lets dig just a bit deeper. Any time a person asks Permission, they are creating the Authority, and thereby the Potential for Abuse. "Daddy, can I take take the car to the store?" That is a form of creating Authority, not by the figure of Authority, but by the actions of the person requesting "Authorization".

The next reason that Marriage Licenses are demanded is that it is NOT a Union between two individuals, but between two individuals PLUS THE STATE. If by granting Permission to get married created no situations where more of an individual or couples property could be deprived by the State, then no Licenses would be issued to begin with. But as it stands the results of Marriage creates special situations of Entitlement, such as Health Insurance and Inheritance, and many other extensions. This spouce died, all their property now becomes yours. That spouce is ill, your Insurance will cover the costs of their medical care. Marriage Licenses are only a path to deprive individuals and couples of as much of their property as possible. Again, asking Permission creates Authority. "May I have my deceased partners possessions"? When the State refuses to recognize that Union of two People, all the property either becomes the property of the State where by the State is truly the owner of all property. And as always, the Govt will always claim that the needs of the Govt outweigh the needs of any individual.

---

If you want your Rights back, stop asking fucking Permission for EVERYTHING.


Stop asking permission to speak.
Stop asking permission to carry a gun.
Stop asking permission to get married.
Stop asking permission to travel.
Stop asking permission to keep the property of a deceased spouce or parent.
Stop asking permission to practice any Religion.
Stop asking permission to keep your private affairs private.
Stop asking permission for damn near every action in your lives.



Lets go back to the orignal quote by Thomas Jefferson. If we truly recognize Equal Rights, then a certain degree of responsiblity must be taken as well. We need to be the ones that recognize the Equal Rights of ALL People. Those lines will never be clearly defined by Govt, and can only be defined by two people, be those two people Neighbors, Spouces, Families, Clerk and Customer, or two people that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Once you recognize both your Rights and the Equal Rights of another, also recognize your own Responsibility and the Equal Responsibility of others as well. Thus, all this Entitlement bullshit also has to end. We do not have the Right to Infringe upon the Equal Rights of others, through Claims of Entitlement or using Govt as an excuse to deprive another person of Equal Rights of their Property. So one more thing to stop doing has to be added to the list:


Stop asking Govt to infringe upon the Equal Rights and Responsibilities of others.

[tod evans]

Stop asking Govt to infringe upon the Equal Rights and Responsibilities of others.


I like the idea of county government employees standing up to the feds, only I wish the rest of the county's government would have stood beside her.

Getting away from federalized government is a good thing with the end game being individual rights..

Maybe this one broad will spark others to stand up.....

One at a time the feds can crush, even one county at a time, but when there are several county's bucking at the same time fed-gov has a real problem...

Doesn't matter to me which faction gets the ball rollin', could be dope smokers, or Christians or even Muslims, truck drivers, bikers or farmers...

There's too much surveillance, too many different mindsets and too little land for this many people, something is going to change. I just hope it doesn't get to bloody and affect my child for too long.

[erowe1]

THIS ^^^^ Exactly the argument I've been making. Have some intellectual honesty and integrity for crying out loud. If she didn't agree with gay marriage... quit. No one is forcing her to do anything against her faith. She can either do what is legally required of her, or suffer the consequences... she is no hero. Especially given her many divorces/adultery/etc etc....

Jail is too much though....

Do you have a source that shows she is legally required to issue same sex marriage licenses?

[Sonny Tufts]

If so, I think that harms her case. Not issuing marriage licenses at all is to neglect her duties. But per the laws of Kentucky, these do not include same-sex couples. When she took that job, the law itself specifically defined her duties that way, and the Kentucky legislature has not changed it.

That's quite beside the point. Refusal to issue licenses to same-sex couples is unconstitutional, so the fact that Kentucky law says that only hetero couples can get licenses is irrelevant. Look at it this way: Alabama's constitution contained an anti-miscegenation provision that wasn't repealed until 2000. Are you suggesting that Alabama could legally refuse to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples from 1967 (the year Loving was decided) until 2000?

[Ender]

That's quite beside the point. Refusal to issue licenses to same-sex couples is unconstitutional, so the fact that Kentucky law says that only hetero couples can get licenses is irrelevant. Look at it this way: Alabama's constitution contained an anti-miscegenation provision that wasn't repealed until 2000. Are you suggesting that Alabama could legally refuse to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples from 1967 (the year Loving was decided) until 2000?

In Missouri you could legally kill Mormons until the law was rescinded in 1980. ;)

[Tywysog Cymru]

That's quite beside the point. Refusal to issue licenses to same-sex couples is unconstitutional, so the fact that Kentucky law says that only hetero couples can get licenses is irrelevant. Look at it this way: Alabama's constitution contained an anti-miscegenation provision that wasn't repealed until 2000. Are you suggesting that Alabama could legally refuse to issue marriage licenses to interracial couples from 1967 (the year Loving was decided) until 2000?

Interracial marriage is covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, while gay marriage is not. The dictionary definition for marriage, to my knowledge, has never been "a union between people of the same race." While up until 2001 marriage had only been defined as an opposite-sex institution, in every culture.

[Anti Federalist]

Wait, what about Romans 13?

I thought all government was ordained by god and must be obeyed?

http://i.imgur.com/8VkDHlf.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/G4mjmMx.jpg

[erowe1]

Refusal to issue licenses to same-sex couples is unconstitutional

No it isn't.

[Anti Federalist]

No it isn't.

Well, what she was doing certainly wasn't biblical, at least according to Franklin Graham.

[euphemia]

Why are we just picking on one case? There are quite a few places where state and county officials regularly defy federal law. Sand Francisco and the sanctuary city thing would be one. States that refuse to enforce federal drug laws would be another. Shoot, the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton did it. So did Lois Lerner and the IRS. Why aren't any of them in jail?

[Sola_Fide]

TC,

There are Christians who accept ***** just as there are sects of other religions that do.

Making a blanket statement about "Christians" is disingenuous.

Now if you would have specified Fundamental Evangelicals.....

Please don't claim to speak for Christians as a group, you're doing yourself and Christianity a disservice.

(I am already aware that you consider Evangelicalism the only "true" Christian" but the rest of the world doesn't and you come across as foolish and myopic by refusing to accept that)


Biblical Christians can't "accept" homosexuality. Those churches you cited in your other thread have left Biblical Christianity a long time ago (or were never part of it).

[tod evans]

Biblical Christians can't "accept" homosexuality. Those churches you cited in your other thread have left Biblical Christianity a long time ago (or were never part of it).

Did ya' ever stop to think that's why I didn't qualify my statement with "Biblical" or "Evangelical" or "Baptist", or, or?

I posted that in response to TC posting about "Christians" not being able to work government jobs..

Government jobs aren't for honorable people, Christian or not.


Thread for discussing *****-n-religion;

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?481551-Christianity-and-homosexual-quot-marriage-quot

[idiom]

You can quote things. But you can't quote something to back up the false claim you made. Why not just admit you made a mistake?

I just did quote something to back up the accurate claim that I made.

Maybe read the book instead of reciting sunday school lessons?

The destruction of the two cities was contingent upon there being not even ten righteous persons.

If not, it would have been pretty much required by God to annihilate every city that went south.

It is consistent with previously destroying the planet when only able to find eight people worth saving.

So my point that claims that allowing gay marriage will lead to the destruction of America are extra-biblical is supported by my quote, but not by yours.


Do we have examples of occasions where God has directly intervened supernaturally to destroy cities simply for being permissive which is your claim?

[euphemia]

This is a very conservative county. With the exception of Morehead, it's a dry county.

This is grandstanding by homosexual activists. They are within driving distance of Ohio. If their goal is really to be married, they could just drive to Ohio and get married. A lot of people do not live in the place where they get married. I'm in travel and tourism. Destination weddings are very common. Go get married, for crying out loud.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[bunklocoempire]

You gotta serve somebody.

A Christian should know what a can of worms it is to flirt with ANY government (force).

This morning I heard someone say:
"This story is getting God mentioned, and remember, she was elected."

What I really hear is:
"I'm going to help my all powerful God with human force rather than, or along with, my love and personal example emulating Jesus. I don't mind if through this, our voluntary reciprocation of God's undeserved love for us, our relationship with God, is downplayed. "

ggggggrrrrrrrr

:( It's always been a "selfie" world.

[wizardwatson]

This is a very conservative county. With the exception of Morehead, it's a dry county.

This is grandstanding by homosexual activists. They are within driving distance of Ohio. If their goal is really to be married, they could just drive to Ohio and get married. A lot of people do not live in the place where they get married. I'm in travel and tourism. Destination weddings are very common. Go get married, for crying out loud.

The grandstanding is by organizations. I'll bet if you follow the money (who's the lawyer and who's paying for it, could even be volunteers, but then again Davis' lawyer is also from an organization) for the gay couple it's likely ACLU or related money. The ACLU has an agenda and this is one of them. They had already planned to ram gay marriage through the courts when they started.

You asked earlier "why focus on this law breaking instead of asylum cities, etc." It's because judges make decisions based on court cases. If you want judicial activism you need to file lawsuits "like the dickens!" So the reason we have asylum cities is because there aren't NGO's (really the government) like ACLU pushing that agenda from the private sector by filing lawsuits against mayors/cities, or there are and the opposition is better funded/connected.

[LibertyEagle]

You gotta serve somebody.

A Christian should know what a can of worms it is to flirt with ANY government (force).

This morning I heard someone say:
"This story is getting God mentioned, and remember, she was elected."

What I really hear is:
"I'm going to help my all powerful God with human force rather than, or along with, my love and personal example emulating Jesus. I don't mind if through this, our voluntary reciprocation of God's undeserved love for us, our relationship with God, is downplayed. "

ggggggrrrrrrrr

:( It's always been a "selfie" world.

HUH? She's not using force at all. It's the feds who are doing that.

[Anti Federalist]

Why are we just picking on one case? There are quite a few places where state and county officials regularly defy federal law. Sand Francisco and the sanctuary city thing would be one. States that refuse to enforce federal drug laws would be another. Shoot, the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton did it. So did Lois Lerner and the IRS. Why aren't any of them in jail?

Well, we all know the answer to that.

Prosecuting this woman fits into the current prevailing winds of the continuing crisis.

From cops to this issue, there is no such thing as "equal justice under the law" anymore.

Not in the AmeriKan Soyuz anyway.

[JK/SEA]

hiding behind your intolerance using your religion as you draw a paycheck as an elected official....yay...freedom.

hows that IRS thing going with the Teaparty groups?...any news?

[juleswin]

HUH? She's not using force at all. It's the feds who are doing that.

Something you should have learned on this site if you hadn't spent most of your time being the #1 apologist for Trump is that all government operation (be it state, city, county etc) is directly and indirectly conducted via the use of force. Yes, she herself may not be showcasing the force but funds used for her salary and making sure her pension is well funded is extracted by proxies through a process called taxation. If it wasn't force, it wouldn't be called govt, it would be a private institution.



4529

I really like this quote cos it exposes her for the complete fraud that she is.