They said Christians wouldn't be persecuted by the State for following their conscience. Anthony Kennedy promised it wouldn't happen. Some here even said it'd never happen.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/03/rowan-county-ky-court-clerk-marriage-licenses-gays/71635794/
I thought they would fine her, but not put her in jail.
Quote from: Dori on September 03, 2015, 10:57:04 AM
I thought they would fine her, but not put her in jail.
snip~
QuoteU.S. District Court Judge David Bunning placed Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis in the custody of U.S. marshals until she complies, saying fines were not enough to force her to comply with his previous order to provide the paperwork to all couples and allowing her to defy the order would create a "ripple effect."
I think the judge thinks this will nip it in the bud. This my come back and bite him in the ass.
The judge was absolutely right to jail her. Why? Because she broke the law, and then tried to hide behind her religion to do so.
Religious freedom, has never been an excuse to break the law. This is why for example if someone follows satanism, they can't go around making human sacrifices to the devil.
Doing so would break the law.
As for persecuting her, bull.
It's not persecution, when you bring jail upon yourself.
And that's what this clerk did. She brought it on herself. She chose to disobey the law.
The State didn't go looking for her, to force her to do something. She voluntarily ran for and was elected to that position. And she voluntarily refused to follow the law.
Nowhere, in the very scriptures she claims she's operating by. Does the God she claims to love and follow so much.
Ever tell the Christian it's ok to break the law's of the land they reside in.
Nor does he ever say that cherry picking, which of his laws you will abide by and agree with, and those you don't, is ok either.
According to the news reports, she has been divorced and remarried four times, and had two children out of wedlock entirely.
Hmm lets see whats the Bible say about that? Ohh that's right, that she's a whore, her kids are bastards, and she along with the kids born out of wedlock should be stoned to death publicly.
Would it be ok, for some church to throw her off a cliff down onto the rocks, and then throw boulders on her till she's dead?
No. It wouldn't. Why? Because in this nation, under the law of the land, that would be murder. It would be a capital punishment for something our law doesn't say is a violation of the law, by those not empowered within the law, to execute someone.
Lastly, let me say this. Everytime, someone like this woman shows up, claiming Christianity the way this woman has done. In order to justify the scripturally unjustifiable.
They make the entire church look like the very things Christ said he hates.
They make ALL believers appear to be hypocrites. Cherry picking those scriptures that suit them, to justify their misbehavior.
Quote from: daidalos on September 03, 2015, 12:59:45 PM
The judge was absolutely right to jail her. Why? Because she broke the law, and then tried to hide behind her religion to do so.
Religious freedom, has never been an excuse to break the law. This is why for example if someone follows satanism, they can't go around making human sacrifices to the devil.
Doing so would break the law.
As for persecuting her, bull.
It's not persecution, when you bring jail upon yourself.
And that's what this clerk did. She brought it on herself. She chose to disobey the law.
The State didn't go looking for her, to force her to do something. She voluntarily ran for and was elected to that position. And she voluntarily refused to follow the law.
Nowhere, in the very scriptures she claims she's operating by. Does the God she claims to love and follow so much.
Ever tell the Christian it's ok to break the law's of the land they reside in.
Nor does he ever say that cherry picking, which of his laws you will abide by and agree with, and those you don't, is ok either.
According to the news reports, she has been divorced and remarried four times, and had two children out of wedlock entirely.
Hmm lets see whats the Bible say about that? Ohh that's right, that she's a whore, her kids are bastards, and she along with the kids born out of wedlock should be stoned to death publicly.
Would it be ok, for some church to throw her off a cliff down onto the rocks, and then throw boulders on her till she's dead?
No. It wouldn't. Why? Because in this nation, under the law of the land, that would be murder. It would be a capital punishment for something our law doesn't say is a violation of the law, by those not empowered within the law, to execute someone.
Lastly, let me say this. Everytime, someone like this woman shows up, claiming Christianity the way this woman has done. In order to justify the scripturally unjustifiable.
They make the entire church look like the very things Christ said he hates.
They make ALL believers appear to be hypocrites. Cherry picking those scriptures that suit them, to justify their misbehavior.
You're a fool! SCOTUS did not define the First, it rewrote the law and trampled the First.
First Amendment - Religion and Expression. 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.
What SCOTUS did was to usurp Congress charge of rewriting law, therefore the SCOTUS ruling was unconstitutional and will be challenged at a later date, possibly by Congress.
Quote from: Solar on September 03, 2015, 01:06:55 PM
You're a fool! SCOTUS did not define the First, it rewrote the law and trampled the First.
First Amendment - Religion and Expression. 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.
What SCOTUS did was to usurp Congress charge of rewriting law, therefore the SCOTUS ruling was unconstitutional and will be challenged at a later date, possibly by Congress.
You are absolutely right, solar!!!!
It was the Court that trespassed into the religious domain. Marriage is a religious rite and the government has no right to define it. Their only right is to create an alternative to it. That would be a civil union.
This law will not stand for long!
Quote from: kroz on September 03, 2015, 01:12:16 PM
You are absolutely right, solar!!!!
It was the Court that trespassed into the religious domain. Marriage is a religious rite and the government has no right to define it. Their only right is to create an alternative to it. That would be a civil union.
This law will not stand for long!
He's in good company. :rolleyes:
https://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/presidential-candidate-sen-lindsey-graham-calls-resignation-clerk-who-wont-issue-same-sex
Quote from: Solar on September 03, 2015, 01:58:25 PM
He's in good company. :rolleyes:
https://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/presidential-candidate-sen-lindsey-graham-calls-resignation-clerk-who-wont-issue-same-sex
Graham is gay anyway!!
Also, this woman's job description changed. It would be a little different IF she went into the job knowing shed be issuing "marriage" licenses to Adam & Steve, but she's been there for 20 years. Who knew the country would sink this low? Well, I did.
daidalos doesn't seem to get that the Constitution doesn't grant rights to the individual. It exist to place limits on an oppressive Government. The conscience of the individual was sacred to the Founders, not the "rights" of government.
Quote from: carlb on September 03, 2015, 03:39:05 PM
Also, this woman's job description changed. It would be a little different IF she went into the job knowing shed be issuing "marriage" licenses to Adam & Steve, but she's been there for 20 years. Who knew the country would sink this low? Well, I did.
Exactly. The job came before the law. Same with the bakers, florists and photographers who have found themselves on the losing end of gay marriage laws.
Quote from: Solar on September 03, 2015, 01:06:55 PM
You're a fool! SCOTUS did not define the First, it rewrote the law and trampled the First.
First Amendment - Religion and Expression. 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.
What SCOTUS did was to usurp Congress charge of rewriting law, therefore the SCOTUS ruling was unconstitutional and will be challenged at a later date, possibly by Congress.
THAT - I agree with completely. Religion, freedom of speech/the press, peaceably assemble, etc., go hand in hand - lose one, the others go next. They had freedom of Religion in Russia (only certain churches were allowed). Hitler had freedom of the press (he controlled them all). SCOTUS opened the door to violating the 1st amendment, I'm with this lady,
if she finally decided to do something RIGHT in her life and pay a price for it, more grace to her! The GAYS are deliberately targeting her, I could hear the roudy assembly over the radio - and furthermore, she has been receiving death threats and threats of perverse acts upon herself & family. If she's decided to fear God rather than Man, she's got more guts than the SCOTUS that gave us Obama Care and Gay marriage.
Another demonstration why marriage, abortion, land use, taxation, etc., authority belongs with the STATES, not a handful of unelected bureaucrats holed up in one tiny little part of the country.
Quote from: daidalos on September 03, 2015, 12:59:45 PM
The judge was absolutely right to jail her. Why? Because she broke the law, and then tried to hide behind her religion to do so.
Religious freedom, has never been an excuse to break the law. This is why for example if someone follows satanism, they can't go around making human sacrifices to the devil.
Doing so would break the law.
......
Nowhere, in the very scriptures she claims she's operating by. Does the God she claims to love and follow so much.
Ever tell the Christian it's ok to break the law's of the land they reside in.
Nor does he ever say that cherry picking, which of his laws you will abide by and agree with, and those you don't, is ok either.
....
They make the entire church look like the very things Christ said he hates.
They make ALL believers appear to be hypocrites. Cherry picking those scriptures that suit them, to justify their misbehavior.
If what you just said were actually true, we wouldn't have the law of Moses, ten commandments and the nation of Israel would still be stuck in Egypt. The very life of Moses was preserved by breaking the law of Egypt.This woman doesn't need condemnation, not when she's demonstrating her faith in following the Lord's leading - she needs God's grace and our prayerful support. What if SHE becomes the catalyst that reverses the course this country is on (ie., Moses), would you or I want to be on the wrong side? :blushing: :blushing: :blushing: I was a wicked man for many, many years, until Jesus stepped into my life and changed me. Who's to say where this woman is in her life with God? I applaud her!
The rest of the world will always call believers lawless, hypocrites, stupid, flat-earthers, etc., we're called to follow the Lord, not inspect each other's sheep/church for defects.
I don;t care what Graham or the SCOTUS says or what the Constittution says and I don;t care what the law says....putting this woman in JAIL over such a thing IS JUST PLAIN WRONG!!!!!!
Whoever decided to do so should themselves be stripped of all authority and removed from office and I hope she sues and wins.
There is such a thing as the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, I was always taught that if you have power you must exercise GOOD JUDGEMENT....
Now somebody convince me where the 'good judgement' is here in this case.
Quote from: Solar on September 03, 2015, 01:06:55 PM
You're a fool! SCOTUS did not define the First, it rewrote the law and trampled the First.
First Amendment - Religion and Expression. 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.
What SCOTUS did was to usurp Congress charge of rewriting law, therefore the SCOTUS ruling was unconstitutional and will be challenged at a later date, possibly by Congress.
Which is fine and is the legal method of doing so. Not simply disobeying what is currently like it or not, the law of the Federal U.S. government.
Cruz on court ruling
"Where is the call for President Obama to resign for ignoring and dLois Lerner goes efying our immigration laws, our welfare reform laws, and even his own Obamacare?
....when the President resigns, then we can talk about Kim Davis"
Carly Fiorina tweet
"Lois Lerner goes on paid administrative leave from the IRS, but KY clerk KimDavis goes to jail?
Quote from: daidalos on September 03, 2015, 05:33:06 PM
Which is fine and is the legal method of doing so. Not simply disobeying what is currently like it or not, the law of the Federal U.S. government.
Nonsense, the Federal Govt and its puppets ignores the laws on immigration and half a dozen other things. Yet since it is politically correct to support gays they turn around and slam some peon clerk.
That is total Bullshit.
If we put every "govt offiical" that ignored the law in Jail we wouldn't have enough room.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 03, 2015, 05:43:46 PM
Nonsense, the Federal Govt and its puppets ignores the laws on immigration and half a dozen other things. Yet since it is politically correct to support gays they turn around and slam some peon clerk.
That is total Bullshit.
If we put every "govt offiical" that ignored the law in Jail we wouldn't have enough room.
Beat me to it. Selectively enforcing laws is not law enforcement, it's pure intimidation.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 03, 2015, 05:43:46 PM
Nonsense, the Federal Govt and its puppets ignores the laws on immigration and half a dozen other things. Yet since it is politically correct to support gays they turn around and slam some peon clerk.
That is total Bullshit.
If we put every "govt offiical" that ignored the law in Jail we wouldn't have enough room.
But, "its the law!" Welcome to Obama's America. BTW, what "law" was passed by both Houses and signed by the Christian hating Muslim?
Jail for the peasants. Lavish vacations for the "lord's".
OBAMA RELEASES 166,000 CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIENS
http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-admin-releases-166000-criminal-illegal-aliens/
But we're told Trump is " extreme" on ILLEGAL immigration
Quote
Judicial Watch obtained documents proving that, to date, the Obama administration has released 165,950 illegal aliens with criminal convictions back into the population. The watchdog organization released 76 pages of Homeland Security documents on Friday, retrieved through FOIA request, showing that many of the criminals were found guilty of violent crimes, including homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault.
According to a report published by the Center for Immigration Services in May 2014, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) freed 36,007 convicted criminal aliens who had nearly 88,000 convictions, including 193 homicide convictions, 426 sexual assault convictions, and 303 kidnapping convictions in the year 2013 alone
Quote from: daidalos on September 03, 2015, 12:59:45 PM
Nowhere, in the very scriptures she claims she's operating by. Does the God she claims to love and follow so much.
Ever tell the Christian it's ok to break the law's of the land they reside in.
Nor does he ever say that cherry picking, which of his laws you will abide by and agree with, and those you don't, is ok either.
Acts Chapter 5:
The government said in court (after arresting Peter and the apostles a
second time for preaching Jesus):
28 "We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man's blood upon us."
29
But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men."
Quote from: je_freedom on September 03, 2015, 07:00:45 PM
Acts Chapter 5:
The government said in court (after arresting Peter and the apostles a second time for preaching Jesus):
28 "We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man's blood upon us."
29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men."
:thumbsup: exactly!
He would have supported the British. After all, the Colonists were BREAKING THE LAW.
The Scriptures are filled with examples of God's People defying the laws of Man when they conflict with the Law of God.
So, this woman is jailed for not adhering to federal law. When will mayors and police chiefs of sanctuary cities be jailed?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on September 03, 2015, 07:50:25 PM
So, this woman is jailed for not adhering to federal law. When will mayors and police chiefs of sanctuary cities be jailed?
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpeacemoonbeam.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d83451af9f69e201901c4a96c2970b-500wi&hash=0d0d83a4bfac93fd4f9b747f5468e348da4186a0)
Quote from: walkstall on September 03, 2015, 08:23:57 PM
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpeacemoonbeam.typepad.com%2F.a%2F6a00d83451af9f69e201901c4a96c2970b-500wi&hash=0d0d83a4bfac93fd4f9b747f5468e348da4186a0)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Which one is Hilary?
Quote from: The Boo Man... on September 03, 2015, 08:32:19 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Which one is Hilary?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Which one is the fat one?
Quote from: daidalos on September 03, 2015, 12:59:45 PM
The judge was absolutely right to jail her. Why? Because she broke the law, and then tried to hide behind her religion to do so.
Bullstuff, squared and cubed.
"Congress shall make
NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion,
OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF..."
She should not HAVE to "hide behind her religion" because the LAW should not be forcing her to violate her religion. The LAW is at fault here, not the woman. The LAW is prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The GOVERNMENT has shit all over our freedom, essentially negating the first half first amendment and you blame the VICTIM? And if you think they will be happy with just negating the first half, have another think. Laws against speaking out against gay marriage are coming, and from that point kiss the 1st good bye.
What is happening here is the government took the side of LGBT
BECAUSE it has given them the excuse they have been searching for, for over 100 years. They WANT to be able to reign in religion, and then do away with it entirely. That goal has been one of the cornerstones of establishing their socialist tyranny. They started with forbidding prayer in schools because it supposedly violates the establishment clause. Then they started forcing the removal of anything that could be interpreted as religious (CHRISTIAN, specifically) from public properties. We're talking monuments and statues that have been in place for over 100 years are SUDDENLY a threat to the "freedom" of atheists. And now Christians are forbidden to operate their businesses, or conduct their jobs according to their religious beliefs. We are now to put God in the closet and obey all secualr laws, no matter what those actions entail?
It's so nice to see mindless drones hop aboard their anti-religion bandwagon. Now go back in your kitchen. I'm sure there is another nice big pitcher of koolaid waiting for you. But be aware: this is NOT over, and it will not BE over until one of two things happen. Either the current laws which are in BLATANT violation of the First Amendment will be overturned, and we return to a nation which gives due respect to the freedom of the people to pursue their religion, OR all Christians will be dead. Because as long as we are living, we will FIGHT, by whatever means the government forces on us.
Quote from: daidalos on September 03, 2015, 12:59:45 PM
The judge was absolutely right to jail her. Why? Because she broke the law...
Romans used to say something like:" Let the Justice hold strong, even if the whole world will collapse". So, their world did collapse. Along with their justice...
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 03, 2015, 05:43:46 PM
If we put every "govt offiical" that ignored the law in Jail we wouldn't have enough room.
We certainly would have fewer elected Democrats.
Just another thought here but suppose this clerk was not a Christian but of the Islamic faith with the same aversions to homosexuality....anybody think the courts would dare jail a Muslim for their religious beliefs?
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 04, 2015, 05:29:33 AM
Just another thought here but suppose this clerk was not a Christian but of the Islamic faith with the same aversions to homosexuality....anybody think the courts would dare jail a Muslim for their religious beliefs?
We both know this wouldn't have made the news, because the govt would have quietly created a special position so it could marry only Muscum.
She was targeted, the judge was shopped, end of story.
Quote from: The Boo Man... on September 03, 2015, 08:32:19 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Which one is Hilary?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Finally, a pic to top that 'un that the Bronx puts up occasionally. (The laughing Chimp)
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 04, 2015, 05:29:33 AM
Just another thought here but suppose this clerk was not a Christian but of the Islamic faith with the same aversions to homosexuality....anybody think the courts would dare jail a Muslim for their religious beliefs?
They're afraid of Muslims, so no, they wouldn't be jailed. It wouldn't have even gone to court.
The judge told the clerk that she took an oath to uphold the law. If that is the criteria for jail time, then Obama needs to be in jail too.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 04, 2015, 05:29:33 AM
Just another thought here but suppose this clerk was not a Christian but of the Islamic faith with the same aversions to homosexuality....anybody think the courts would dare jail a Muslim for their religious beliefs?
Again the premise is a false one. She was not jailed because she believes in Christ or the Bible.
She was jailed because she chose to ignore a court order, and thus break the law.
The fact she's made the false claim, that it is her religious belief that tells her to do so.
Is irrelevant, as it's been shown time and time and time again.
There is zero Biblical foundation for outright disobedience to the legal/civil rules of our society.
Christ wasn't joking when he said, "Render to Cesar, what is Cesar's", that wasn't just some clever inside joke between him and the disciples.
And yes, if a Muslim did this, if a Muslim simply refused to obey the law, I would hope they'd jail them too.
Quote from: daidalos on September 04, 2015, 10:47:37 AM
Again the premise is a false one. She was not jailed because she believes in Christ or the Bible.
She was jailed because she chose to ignore a court order, and thus break the law.
The fact she's made the false claim, that it is her religious belief that tells her to do so.
Is irrelevant, as it's been shown time and time and time again.
There is zero Biblical foundation for outright disobedience to the legal/civil rules of our society.
Christ wasn't joking when he said, "Render to Cesar, what is Cesar's", that wasn't just some clever inside joke between him and the disciples.
And yes, if a Muslim did this, if a Muslim simply refused to obey the law, I would hope they'd jail them too.
Show me where the Govt is in the right.
You do realize, only Congress can write laws, right?
Did Congress violate the First? No, so how was it possible for SCOTUS to write law?
Come on Daidalos, you can do it, use that critical thinking, and give us a reasonable answering explaining how the govt had the right to do what they did.
First Amendment - Religion and Expression. 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
Is this subject becoming a distraction?
Quoteif it's not newsworthy, it's from the LSM and belongs here
Is BASIC Constitutional freedom, being undermined by the Left, "NEWSWORTHY"? Of course it is. Of course, MY opinion matters not at all as far as the operation of this board, but it certainly IS " NEWSWORTHY."
If YOU stood your ground for your basic beliefs and found yourself in jail, I believe you'd think your ordeal was "NEWSWORTHY."
My opinion? If the topic doesn't interest you, don't read it and don't participate in the threads that don't interest you.
Asking that question, to derail the topic IS a distraction.
Quote from: carlb on September 04, 2015, 05:07:18 PM
if it's not newsworthy, it's from the LSM and belongs here
Who are you quoting?
This woman had said all along that she would file the paperwork, and every other aspect of her job, but she COULD NOT sign the document! Her signature, to herself, and the homos who TARGETED HER, agree that her signature, the signature of a Christian, means the document has her blessing.
BUT THE "GODS" OF GOVERNMENT INSIST SHE DO THAT. The radical gay mafia insist that the document have HER blessing (with her signature). I think daidalos was one who insisted that Christians will not suffer persecution over this issue. In fact, he insists, even now, that this woman isn't being persecuted for her fundamental beliefs.
Quote
"To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience," she said. She added: "I have no animosity toward anyone and harbor no ill will. To me this has never been a gay or lesbian issue. It is about marriage and God's word."
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/02/us/same-sex-marriage-kentucky-kim-davis.html?_r=0&referrer=
Quote from: Solar on September 04, 2015, 05:14:27 PM
Who are you quoting?
The DEFINITION of what belongs in the "distraction forum"
Quote from: daidalos on September 04, 2015, 10:47:37 AM
Again the premise is a false one. She was not jailed because she believes in Christ or the Bible.
She was jailed because she chose to ignore a court order, and thus break the law.
The fact she's made the false claim, that it is her religious belief that tells her to do so.
Is irrelevant, as it's been shown time and time and time again.
There is zero Biblical foundation for outright disobedience to the legal/civil rules of our society.
Christ wasn't joking when he said, "Render to Cesar, what is Cesar's", that wasn't just some clever inside joke between him and the disciples.
And yes, if a Muslim did this, if a Muslim simply refused to obey the law, I would hope they'd jail them too.
And it makes not one difference to tyrant JERKOFFS that the law itself is in direct violation of our constitution? This is the society you WANT, when the govenrment can just jail people, no due process, nothing but "we told you to do something and you didn;t so go to jail.
You are defending the DICTIONARY DEFINITION of tyranny!
Quote from: daidalos on September 04, 2015, 10:47:37 AM
Again the premise is a false one. She was not jailed because she believes in Christ or the Bible.
She was jailed because she chose to ignore a court order, and thus break the law.
The fact she's made the false claim, that it is her religious belief that tells her to do so.
Is irrelevant, as it's been shown time and time and time again.
There is zero Biblical foundation for outright disobedience to the legal/civil rules of our society.
Christ wasn't joking when he said, "Render to Cesar, what is Cesar's", that wasn't just some clever inside joke between him and the disciples.
And yes, if a Muslim did this, if a Muslim simply refused to obey the law, I would hope they'd jail them too.
Oh Come on, you really think these jellyfish would jail a Muslim for a religious practice?
The gays fear the muslims and so does every one else in our society. They can get away with this because the woman is a Christian.....she is also a Democrat which I dfind Ironic, but anyhow it also goes hand in hand with what I've been saying for years. The Gays want special rightsw and privildges ala a minority
Quote from: carlb on September 04, 2015, 05:24:10 PM
The DEFINITION of what belongs in the "distraction forum"
:biggrin:
Ah, you quoted me.
As long as the focus remains the subject of the First Amendment, then it's newsworthy, but once the focus is lost, it gets moved.
In other words, it's about our Bill of Rights and how the Govt is trampling said Rights.
Quote from: Solar on September 04, 2015, 06:04:36 PM
:biggrin:
Ah, you quoted me.
As long as the focus remains the subject of the First Amendment, then it's newsworthy, but once the focus is lost, it gets moved.
In other words, it's about our Bill of Rights and how the Govt is trampling said Rights.
Thanks. That was my opinion. But then, everybody's got one.
Quote from: daidalos on September 04, 2015, 10:47:37 AM
Again the premise is a false one. She was not jailed because she believes in Christ or the Bible.
She was jailed because she chose to ignore a court order, and thus break the law.
The fact she's made the false claim, that it is her religious belief that tells her to do so.
Is irrelevant, as it's been shown time and time and time again.
There is zero Biblical foundation for outright disobedience to the legal/civil rules of our society.
Christ wasn't joking when he said, "Render to Cesar, what is Cesar's", that wasn't just some clever inside joke between him and the disciples.
And yes, if a Muslim did this, if a Muslim simply refused to obey the law, I would hope they'd jail them too.
I have no doubt. If a Muslim did this, he'd have MY full support, IN THIS.
As far as your misunderstanding of render unto Caesar, the KEY is WHAT IS CAESAR'S.
The State is treading where it has NO authority.
Quote from: kroz on September 04, 2015, 04:54:26 PM
Yes.
Most of us can think of more than one thing at a time.
Martin Luther King, Mandella and Gandhi practiced civil disobedience, were jailed for it, and ultimately exonerated and honored. Why is this clerk different? Slavery was the law of the land, Separate but Equal was the law of the land, prohibition was the law of the land as was the denial of women the vote, yet these laws were changed. The Supreme Court has taken to making laws rather than interpreting them vis a' vis the Constitution. The time must come when laws are made by Congress and not by the Supreme Court. Civil disobedience against unjust laws is an American tradition.
Read carefully Kentucky's CONSTITUTION. Since the US Constitution NOWHERE defines marriage, or mentions God, the Supremesare treading where they have no business.
Kentucky
Preamble:
We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy, and invoking the continuance of these blessings, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
Section 1, Clause 2:
The right of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences.
Section 228, oath of office:
... so help me God.
Section 232:
The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed by the General Assembly the most solemn appeal to God.
Quote from: carlb on September 06, 2015, 09:31:04 AM
Read carefully Kentucky's CONSTITUTION. Since the US Constitution NOWHERE defines marriage, or mentions God, the Supremesare treading where they have no business.
Kentucky
Preamble:
We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy, and invoking the continuance of these blessings, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
Section 1, Clause 2:
The right of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences.
Section 228, oath of office:
... so help me God.
Section 232:
The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed by the General Assembly the most solemn appeal to God.
Thanks! I was hoping someone had the time to confirm Kentucky was on the lady's side, and this was really Federal intrusion into a State's affairs. In the same breath - my marriage certificate was issued by a "state", not the Federal government.... and I don't like where this issue could eventually end up, if the direction is more power to the Feds.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 04, 2015, 05:48:55 PM
Oh Come on, you really think these jellyfish would jail a Muslim for a religious practice?
The gays fear the muslims and so does every one else in our society. They can get away with this because the woman is a Christian.....she is also a Democrat which I dfind Ironic, but anyhow it also goes hand in hand with what I've been saying for years. The Gays want special rights and privileges ala a minority
It's EASY to go after the little fish first. Noticed their the guilt ridden signs, intended to distract from the truth, "Love wins!" - suppose to justify immorality. Every move is carefully thought out and planned ahead of time to give the maximum media exposure and inflict the most damming slant on the "gay oppressors". They're calling us "haters"... (if you don't EMBRACE homosexuality, you're an evil person)
Quote from: carlb on September 04, 2015, 05:22:37 PM
This woman had said all along that she would file the paperwork, and every other aspect of her job, but she COULD NOT sign the document! Her signature, to herself, and the homos who TARGETED HER, agree that her signature, the signature of a Christian, means the document has her blessing.
BUT THE "GODS" OF GOVERNMENT INSIST SHE DO THAT. The radical gay mafia insist that the document have HER blessing (with her signature).
"Embrace me!!! Letting me have my way is NOT enough, EMBRACE and PROMOTE my lifestyle - or THIS is going to happen to you!"The homosexuals are more afraid of this lady becoming a MARYTER and losing the political battle than actually enjoying their new found freedom to marry! Instead of going to a JP or another office, one "couple of guys" said it was their 9th visit to her office to get
even with the bitch a liscense.
Quote from: kj4adn on September 06, 2015, 10:08:23 AM
Thanks! I was hoping someone had the time to confirm Kentucky was on the lady's side, and this was really Federal intrusion into a State's affairs. In the same breath - my marriage certificate was issued by a "state", not the Federal government.... and I don't like where this issue could eventually end up, if the direction is more power to the Feds.
It's EASY to go after the little fish first. Noticed their the guilt ridden signs, intended to distract from the truth, "Love wins!" - suppose to justify immorality. Every move is carefully thought out and planned ahead of time to give the maximum media exposure and inflict the most damming slant on the "gay oppressors". They're calling us "haters"... (if you don't EMBRACE homosexuality, you're an evil person)
"Embrace me!!! Letting me have my way is NOT enough, EMBRACE and PROMOTE my lifestyle - or THIS is going to happen to you!"
The homosexuals are more afraid of this lady becoming a MARYTER and losing the political battle than actually enjoying their new found freedom to marry! Instead of going to a JP or another office, one "couple of guys" said it was their 9th visit to her office to get even with the bitch a liscense.
But she didn't issue it, did she?
Quote from: Charliemyboy on September 06, 2015, 11:02:59 AM
But she didn't issue it, did she?
Nope, she's still in jail.
Quote from: Charliemyboy on September 06, 2015, 11:02:59 AM
But she didn't issue it, did she?
Nope. And technically she didn't break the law, she just didn't fulfill it.
Unlike Mayor Gavin Neusom back in 2004 who actually broke the law by issuing illegal marriage licenses to same sex couples, became a hero of the left and no charges were ever filed.
What liberal hypocrisy?
Quote from: Solar on September 06, 2015, 12:02:29 PM
What liberal hypocrisy?
It's past the point when "liberal" and "hypocrisy" should simply be listed in the thesaurus as synonyms.
There are endless examples of the double standard in the way the law is applied between regular Americans and the Left. Wish I knew how that could be changed. The law just doesnt apply to the left .
Quote from: zewazir on September 06, 2015, 12:07:07 PM
It's past the point when "liberal" and "hypocrisy" should simply be listed in the thesaurus as synonyms.
:lol:
Like looking up the word redundant, and it lists "Idiot liberal" as an example. :biggrin:
Now that the homosexuals have got their marriage certificate, the crowd would disperse and everyone would go home.
If that was the real intention, then, end-of-story. The gay mafia is probably going to hunt out every bit of resistance and it'll be all over the media, again.
Marriage is not the issue, nobody is flocking to support the guy that wants to marry those two sisters.
Same sex marriage started with law breaking!
http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/same-sex-marriage-started-with-lawbreaking/
Quote from: Charliemyboy on September 06, 2015, 08:16:51 AM
Martin Luther King, Mandella and Gandhi practiced civil disobedience, were jailed for it, and ultimately exonerated and honored. Why is this clerk different? Slavery was the law of the land, Separate but Equal was the law of the land, prohibition was the law of the land as was the denial of women the vote, yet these laws were changed. The Supreme Court has taken to making laws rather than interpreting them vis a' vis the Constitution. The time must come when laws are made by Congress and not by the Supreme Court. Civil disobedience against unjust laws is an American tradition.
Mandella and Ghandi weren't Americans. They don't apply. MLK was however, and the difference between him and this clerk is as glaring as night and day.
First off he really believed what it was he was saying. MLK was't trying to use a religion, which itself says the behaviour in question is wrong, as a crutch to justify breaking the law.
MLK also didn't hurt others with civil disobedience. AND MLK damned sure didn't sit and say woe is me, I'm being religiously persecuted, after being jailed for engaging in that civil disobedience.
And in fact, if we look at the text of his 'I have a dream speech" MLK actually was preaching the exact opposite of what this clerk is saying.
Ut oh.
Quote from: Solar on September 06, 2015, 12:02:29 PM
Nope. And technically she didn't break the law, she just didn't fulfill it.
Unlike Mayor Gavin Neusom back in 2004 who actually broke the law by issuing illegal marriage licenses to same sex couples, became a hero of the left and no charges were ever filed.
What liberal hypocrisy?
There's hypocrisy all around the place with this issue Solar. That's what happens when you have folks who haven't read a Bible beyond John 3:16 thinking they're in a position, or somehow called to teach all the rest of us. And a government that sticks it's nose into what to start with was always religious activity. :rolleyes:
Quote from: mrclose on September 06, 2015, 01:30:46 PM
Here's what no one in the mainstream is talking about:
The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This is the concept of federalism--that the federal government "the United States" only has the limited power expressly granted by the Constitution. Thus, any power NOT specifically granted is expressly reserved to the States individually.
The Constitution is actually silent on the issue of federal authority on marriage licensing. Thus, the Tenth Amendment says that power is reserved to the States.
The State of Kentucky has a First Amendment (passed legally in 2004) to its state constitution that says, "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."
The federal Supreme Court has no actual authority to legislate or create law. It can only (in a very limited capacity) issue opinions on whether laws on state government powers conflict with the text of the Constitution--essentially, that a state is usurping power granted to the federal government.
The Kentucky Constitution stands. Kim Davis was upholding her oath to follow the law in her state, and she followed the Kentucky Constitution, with power on licensing (or not licensing) civil marriages that is reserved to the state.
But the Religious Freedom issue is more sexy, and so by arguing that issue, it becomes a value debate and we are (DANGEROUSLY!) conceding that the federal government has authority where it doesn't--the Tenth Amendment left that power to the states.
And the State of Kentucky has spoken.
Unless and until the U.S. Constitution is amended to specifically grant the federal government power to license marriages, we must defer to state power.
You're exactly right, and this explanation needs to be shouted from the mountain tops. Somehow, our "rulers" have lost their way, and WE need to start holding these people accountable. They know exactly what you said to be the truth, but they just don't care about the limits the Constitution places on them.
Quote from: mrclose on September 06, 2015, 01:30:46 PM
Here's what no one in the mainstream is talking about:
The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This is the concept of federalism--that the federal government "the United States" only has the limited power expressly granted by the Constitution. Thus, any power NOT specifically granted is expressly reserved to the States individually.
The Constitution is actually silent on the issue of federal authority on marriage licensing. Thus, the Tenth Amendment says that power is reserved to the States.
The State of Kentucky has a First Amendment (passed legally in 2004) to its state constitution that says, "Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized."
The federal Supreme Court has no actual authority to legislate or create law. It can only (in a very limited capacity) issue opinions on whether laws on state government powers conflict with the text of the Constitution--essentially, that a state is usurping power granted to the federal government.
The Kentucky Constitution stands. Kim Davis was upholding her oath to follow the law in her state, and she followed the Kentucky Constitution, with power on licensing (or not licensing) civil marriages that is reserved to the state.
But the Religious Freedom issue is more sexy, and so by arguing that issue, it becomes a value debate and we are (DANGEROUSLY!) conceding that the federal government has authority where it doesn't--the Tenth Amendment left that power to the states.
And the State of Kentucky has spoken.
Unless and until the U.S. Constitution is amended to specifically grant the federal government power to license marriages, we must defer to state power.
That nails it! :thumbup:
Mike Huckabee defends Kentucky clerk Kim Davis and says that her act is distinguished and deserves praise. As for me, here I would agree with him because I don`t think that homosexual couples don`t really need a procedure of marriage. I`m not against same-sex couples but the authorization of their marriage nationwide attracts too much attention of politicians and people. Because of this people don`t mind real problems which should be solved.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mike-huckabee-jailed-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-fighting/story?id=33568067 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mike-huckabee-jailed-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-fighting/story?id=33568067)
Huckabee schooled Stephanopoulos.....
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/06/huckabee-schools-stephanopoulos-on-kim-davis/
Huck is on a roll !!!!!!!!!!
This whole thing is going to backfire against the gay people...watch and see. I read an article in which GO FUND ME is not accepting her application ....They are really trying to hammer this woman and that is just going to encourage more people to side with her. AMERICANS LOVE AN UNDERDOG, You can;t stop people from donating to her cause, I also read where a Judge in (I think) oregon refused to marry Gays on religious grounds....lets see if anybody locks up the Judge....
Quote from: daidalos on September 06, 2015, 01:22:26 PM
Mandella and Ghandi weren't Americans. They don't apply. MLK was however, and the difference between him and this clerk is as glaring as night and day.
First off he really believed what it was he was saying. MLK was't trying to use a religion, which itself says the behaviour in question is wrong, as a crutch to justify breaking the law.
MLK also didn't hurt others with civil disobedience. AND MLK damned sure didn't sit and say woe is me, I'm being religiously persecuted, after being jailed for engaging in that civil disobedience.
And in fact, if we look at the text of his 'I have a dream speech" MLK actually was preaching the exact opposite of what this clerk is saying.
Ut oh.
And despite the facts being pointed out multiple times, you still harp on the LIE that it is the clerk who broke the law. She BROKE NOTHING!!!!! The Kentucky State Constitution states unequivocally that marriage is limited to two people of opposite gender. The federal government is in blatant violation of the United States Constitution in saying that the Constitution of Kentucky cannot make that limitation.
And speakong of hypocrisy, I see you are, without ANY supporting evidence nor justification, trying to make the claim that Kim Davis is simply using religion as an excuse. So you know the lady personally? Or is this just one more typical liberal bullshit lie, trying to demonize the opposition to get others to accept the tyranny from you political masters?
You may like to lick the anal sphincters of the federal government every time they come out with a new excuse to screw with our liberty. Most freedom loving Americans do not. Kim Davis definitely does not. And she is RIGHT, both morally and legally, in her decision to tell the over-reaching, tyrant wannabe judge to step off when he ordered her to violate her religious beliefs in favor of an unconstitutional (therefore illegal) ruling from the federal court.
Quote from: zewazir on September 06, 2015, 05:34:52 PM
And despite the facts being pointed out multiple times, you still harp on the LIE that it is the clerk who broke the law. She BROKE NOTHING!!!!! The Kentucky State Constitution states unequivocally that marriage is limited to two people of opposite gender. The federal government is in blatant violation of the United States Constitution in saying that the Constitution of Kentucky cannot make that limitation.
And speakong of hypocrisy, I see you are, without ANY supporting evidence nor justification, trying to make the claim that Kim Davis is simply using religion as an excuse. So you know the lady personally? Or is this just one more typical liberal bullshit lie, trying to demonize the opposition to get others to accept the tyranny from you political masters?
You may like to lick the anal sphincters of the federal government every time they come out with a new excuse to screw with our liberty. Most freedom loving Americans do not. Kim Davis definitely does not. And she is RIGHT, both morally and legally, in her decision to tell the over-reaching, tyrant wannabe judge to step off when he ordered her to violate her religious beliefs in favor of an unconstitutional (therefore illegal) ruling from the federal court.
He's the ONLY one who buys what he's selling. Hexsure loves an all powerful Godvernment when when it pushes his agenda.
Quote from: carlb on September 06, 2015, 05:40:12 PM
He's the ONLY one who buys what he's selling. He sure loves an all powerful, unconstitutiobal Godvernment when when it pushes his agenda.
Quote from: carlb on September 06, 2015, 05:40:12 PM
He's the ONLY one who buys what he's selling. Hexsure loves an all powerful Godvernment when when it pushes his agenda.
After all these years of watching it happen again, again, and again, it still manages to amaze me how modern humanist progressives are so deluded they can eat shit, KNOW it's shit, and still call it peanut butter.
And even more amazing, actually expect others to believe it's peanut butter.
Quote from: mrclose on September 06, 2015, 02:04:48 PM
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi59.tinypic.com%2F11kujab.jpg&hash=11dc6f10131f08e6e4bb8a17a7fcac9ef21391bc)
We are in the world but not of it.
Here is my personal take. This woman took this job before the gay marriage ruling. Because of that I believe the state should do all it can to accommodate both sides which really means to accommodate Mrs. Davis and her religious beliefs. If the state cannot then she should be removed from her job.
Now as far as gay rights and all that crap, Mrs. Davis denied gay couples nothing because they can get a marriage license in any county by any clerk. At the worst she inconvenienced them for a few hours. That is enough to put her in jail?
I wonder how much Kate Steinle's parents have been inconvenienced.
Quote from: mrclose on September 06, 2015, 02:00:21 PM
"It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
Thomas Jefferson
Am I the only person bothered by the fact that a PRIVATE CLUB has a monopoly on an
entire branch of government?
The
entire judiciary branch is
completely owned by the bar association!
Quote from: je_freedom on September 07, 2015, 06:02:28 AM
Am I the only person bothered by the fact that a PRIVATE CLUB has a monopoly on an entire branch of government?
The entire judiciary branch is completely owned by the bar association!
And that is exactly why some people have a problem with Cruz. He is an attorney and member of the Bar.
But he is a Christian first and foremost!
This woman is overwhelmingly supported in Kentucky.vi do wish the state would step in and get her out and tell the feds this issue is none of their damn business. The states better start, or they'll call mpletely lose their independence and become provinces under the Empire.
Quote from: carlb on September 07, 2015, 08:33:10 AM
This woman is overwhelmingly supported in Kentucky.vi do wish the state would step in and get her out and tell the feds this issue is none of their damn business. The states better start, or they'll call mpletely lose their independence and become provinces under the Empire.
I would agree with that. If we fail to exercise our autonomy as States, we will lose it totally.
Having said that, Texas tried to do that and Obama threatened to shutdown our airports. He is viciously vindictive. Our State House caved. :thumbdown:
Wow! This unconstitutional userper hat GOT TO GO! He really is "good" a being evil. His oath tobuphold the Constitution is meaningless. But then, we all knew that. Elections have consequences.
Quote from: carlb on September 07, 2015, 08:43:06 AM
Wow! This unconstitutional userper hat GOT TO GO! He really is "good" a being evil. His oath tobuphold the Constitution is meaningless. But then, we all knew that. Elections have consequences.
If you haven't noticed, the Constitution is meaningless to ALL politicians.......and a good percentage of the so-called "American" public.
You'll never get compliance from the president until you get a Congress that enforces that oath on our president and the Supreme Court. If they all work together to ignore that oath, then we have no hope.
BTW, there are a few. Maybe 1-2 percent that I trust.
Quote from: Montanamike on September 07, 2015, 09:04:19 AM
If you haven't noticed, the Constitution is meaningless to ALL politicians.......and a good percentage of the so-called "American" public.
Well I would not go that far. :lol: NOT all politicians. But most politicians use it only when it fit there agenda on both side of the fence. I would say most Americans 45 and older, the Constitution is not meaningless. Government/judges and Lib's has made it meaningless.
Should we then admit that we no longer live under a Constitutional Republic?
We already live under tyranny. We are just slow to admit it.
Mark Levin calls our time "Post Constitutional America." I'm surprised anyone would argue that. We need to work even harder making wise choices this election cycle.
Quote from: carlb on September 07, 2015, 09:57:53 AM
Mark Levin calls our time "Post Constitutional America." I'm surprised anyone would argue that. We need to work even harder making wise choices this election cycle.
Agreed. :biggrin:
We are compelled to keep trying to restore our Republic.
Quote from: kroz on September 07, 2015, 09:38:51 AM
Should we then admit that we no longer live under a Constitutional Republic?
We already live under tyranny. We are just slow to admit it.
We are living under the equivalent, though both sides are still forced, in some limited instances, to acknowledge the Constitution still exists. But if the People do not wake up within the next major election cycle - two max - we will never get back to our Republic without a lot of blood feeding the tree of liberty.
Quote from: carlb on September 03, 2015, 03:39:05 PM
Also, this woman's job description changed. It would be a little different IF she went into the job knowing shed be issuing "marriage" licenses to Adam & Steve, but she's been there for 20 years. Who knew the country would sink this low? Well, I did.
Then she should have resigned. If she won't either do her job or resign...honestly, I say lock her up until the end of her term and fine her into penury.
Quote from: zewazir on September 07, 2015, 10:01:53 AM
We are living under the equivalent, though both sides are still forced, in some limited instances, to acknowledge the Constitution still exists. But if the People do not wake up within the next major election cycle - two max - we will never get back to our Republic without a lot of blood feeding the tree of liberty.
Yep, those truly are the only two options left.
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 07, 2015, 10:34:03 AM
Then she should have resigned. If she won't either do her job or resign...honestly, I say lock her up until the end of her term and fine her into penury.
You really don't understand the issues involved, do you. So far, that make two here who don't get the deeper principles involved.
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 07, 2015, 10:34:03 AM
Then she should have resigned. If she won't either do her job or resign...honestly, I say lock her up until the end of her term and fine her into penury.
Lets assume a law was passed that outlawed you right to voice an opinion on the issue. Would you follow a bad law?
That's what this is, a usurpation of the Constitution, where SCOTUS actually wrote law and bypassed Congress to do it.
Read the First Amendment and understand exactly what it says about :Laws, Congress and Religion".
There is a reason the Founders believed it should be the First in a list of Ten, followed by our ability to defend them.
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2015, 11:34:48 AM
Lets assume a law was passed that outlawed you right to voice an opinion on the issue. Would you follow a bad law?
That's what this is, a usurpation of the Constitution, where SCOTUS actually wrote law and bypassed Congress to do it.
Read the First Amendment and understand exactly what it says about :Laws, Congress and Religion".
There is a reason the Founders believed it should be the First in a list of Ten, followed by our ability to defend them.
As a Christian yes, I would obey the law of the land I live in. Doesn't mean I would not do everything I could within the law to change that law though.
That's the deeper principle at play here CarlB. We the peons in this nation don't pick and choose which laws we will obey and which we won't.
Many here scream to high heaven every time Obama does it. Yet now, because a woman who has clearly ignored the scripture when it's suited her to do so. Does so claiming Christianity and we'
re all supposed to feel sorry for her? WTF? Either the law is the law, to be applied to everyone across the board.
Or we don't live under a system of laws. That simple.
Oh and yes refusing to adhere and abide by a court order IS a crime. It is called contempt of court.
Quote from: daidalos on September 07, 2015, 11:51:29 AM
As a Christian yes, I would obey the law of the land I live in. Doesn't mean I would not do everything I could within the law to change that law though.
That's the deeper principle at play here CarlB. We the peons in this nation don't pick and choose which laws we will obey and which we won't.
Many here scream to high heaven every time Obama does it. Yet now, because a woman who has clearly ignored the scripture when it's suited her to do so. Does so claiming Christianity and we'
re all supposed to feel sorry for her? WTF? Either the law is the law, to be applied to everyone across the board.
Or we don't live under a system of laws. That simple.
Oh and yes refusing to adhere and abide by a court order IS a crime. It is called contempt of court.
Before I tare you a new one over your blatant ignorance, you still have yet to give me an answer on my earlier post.
So get to it! As follows...
Quote from: Solar on September 04, 2015, 10:56:08 AM
Show me where the Govt is in the right.
You do realize, only Congress can write laws, right?
Did Congress violate the First? No, so how was it possible for SCOTUS to write law?
Come on Daidalos, you can do it, use that critical thinking, and give us a reasonable answering explaining how the govt had the right to do what they did.
First Amendment - Religion and Expression. 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
ONLY Congress can Write law!!!
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2015, 12:06:37 PM
Before I tare you a new one over your blatant ignorance, you still have yet to give me an answer on my earlier post.
So get to it! As follows...
ONLY Congress can Write law!!!
It did when it wrote the equal protection clause. And when it later passed the DomAct. As I've said time and time again, had the Congress kept it's nose out of the marriage business to start with. There would never have been the door opened to start with.
However Congress didn't, Congress decided to interject itself into the situation. And once the Supremes got involved, and now that's the law of the land. If we don't like that, we are totally free to continue going to church, and lobby to effect a change in the law.
We are not however, nor has any American ever been, free to simply ignore the law, because we don't agree with, or like it.
And yes, even when those laws, are contrary to our religious sensibilities.
For example, take abortion. Most Christians are, vehemently against the practice of abortion.
And yet, if those same Christians go and blow up the abortion clinic, to kill those who are performing abortions, we put them in jail as murderers.
Yet to hear some tell it now, in this instance, since they were acting on their religiously held belief, they shouldn't be in prison for murdering the Abortion Dr. That's what those who try to defend this clerk are saying.
Quote from: daidalos on September 07, 2015, 11:51:29 AM
As a Christian yes, I would obey the law of the land I live in. Doesn't mean I would not do everything I could within the law to change that law though.
That's the deeper principle at play here CarlB. We the peons in this nation don't pick and choose which laws we will obey and which we won't.
Many here scream to high heaven every time Obama does it. Yet now, because a woman who has clearly ignored the scripture when it's suited her to do so. Does so claiming Christianity and we'
re all supposed to feel sorry for her? WTF? Either the law is the law, to be applied to everyone across the board.
Or we don't live under a system of laws. That simple.
Oh and yes refusing to adhere and abide by a court order IS a crime. It is called contempt of court.
Yeah, you're the other one. You seem "wedded" to this gay "marriage" issue. In this case, you seem to want Big Government to enforce your will on us "peons." Thru law created by the Supreme Court.
No, here's the deeper issue you choose to ignore in your support of gay "marriage."
QuoteThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This "law" is not legitimate. It's not even a law. The Supremes, in their infinite compassion, simply decided to grant rights where none existed before, and to change the DEFINITION of words to fit their agenda. There is no law on this except in the KENTUCKY CONSTITUTION. The feds opinion is irrelevant.
Quote from: daidalos on September 07, 2015, 12:20:20 PM
It did when it wrote the equal protection clause. And when it later passed the DomAct. As I've said time and time again, had the Congress kept it's nose out of the marriage business to start with. There would never have been the door opened to start with.
However Congress didn't, Congress decided to interject itself into the situation. And once the Supremes got involved, and now that's the law of the land. If we don't like that, we are totally free to continue going to church, and lobby to effect a change in the law.
We are not however, nor has any American ever been, free to simply ignore the law, because we don't agree with, or like it.
And yes, even when those laws, are contrary to our religious sensibilities.
For example, take abortion. Most Christians are, vehemently against the practice of abortion.
And yet, if those same Christians go and blow up the abortion clinic, to kill those who are performing abortions, we put them in jail as murderers.
Yet to hear some tell it now, in this instance, since they were acting on their religiously held belief, they shouldn't be in prison for murdering the Abortion Dr. That's what those who try to defend this clerk are saying.
I have no doubt you would. If I were on the jury, they would walk. Ultimately WE decide. It'sccalled jury nullification.
Quote from: daidalos on September 06, 2015, 01:22:26 PM
Mandella and Ghandi weren't Americans. They don't apply. MLK was however, and the difference between him and this clerk is as glaring as night and day.
First off he really believed what it was he was saying. MLK was't trying to use a religion, which itself says the behaviour in question is wrong, as a crutch to justify breaking the law.
MLK also didn't hurt others with civil disobedience. AND MLK damned sure didn't sit and say woe is me, I'm being religiously persecuted, after being jailed for engaging in that civil disobedience.
And in fact, if we look at the text of his 'I have a dream speech" MLK actually was preaching the exact opposite of what this clerk is saying.
Ut oh.
Of course they apply. While Mandella and Gandhi weren't American, the principle is the same. They are universally honored. Martin Luther King has become a Saint in the Anglican Church. His statue is atop Westminster Abbey with other Anglican Saints. He wasn't English. And he was a Southern Baptist minister and frequently quoted the bible in his speeches.
Quote from: daidalos on September 07, 2015, 12:20:20 PM
It did when it wrote the equal protection clause. And when it later passed the DomAct. As I've said time and time again, had the Congress kept it's nose out of the marriage business to start with. There would never have been the door opened to start with.
However Congress didn't, Congress decided to interject itself into the situation. And once the Supremes got involved, and now that's the law of the land. If we don't like that, we are totally free to continue going to church, and lobby to effect a change in the law.
We are not however, nor has any American ever been, free to simply ignore the law, because we don't agree with, or like it.
And yes, even when those laws, are contrary to our religious sensibilities.
For example, take abortion. Most Christians are, vehemently against the practice of abortion.
And yet, if those same Christians go and blow up the abortion clinic, to kill those who are performing abortions, we put them in jail as murderers.
Yet to hear some tell it now, in this instance, since they were acting on their religiously held belief, they shouldn't be in prison for murdering the Abortion Dr. That's what those who try to defend this clerk are saying.
Quit dancing around the issue. One more time, SOTUS wrote law, onl Congress can write law.
Show me where the Govt is in the right.
You do realize, only Congress can write laws, right?
Did Congress violate the First? No, so how was it possible for SCOTUS to write law?
Come on Daidalos, you can do it, use that critical thinking, and give us a reasonable answering explaining how the govt had the right to do what they did.
First Amendment - Religion and Expression. 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.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 07, 2015, 10:34:03 AM
Then she should have resigned. If she won't either do her job or resign...honestly, I say lock her up until the end of her term and fine her into penury.
The voters voted her in not the government. I they don't wish to have her. Let them vote her out. IF you're too stupid to know who you're voting for then you should not be voting.
Quote from: daidalos on September 07, 2015, 11:51:29 AM
As a Christian yes, I would obey the law of the land I live in. Doesn't mean I would not do everything I could within the law to change that law though.
That's the deeper principle at play here CarlB. We the peons in this nation don't pick and choose which laws we will obey and which we won't.
Many here scream to high heaven every time Obama does it. Yet now, because a woman who has clearly ignored the scripture when it's suited her to do so. Does so claiming Christianity and we'
re all supposed to feel sorry for her? WTF? Either the law is the law, to be applied to everyone across the board.
Or we don't live under a system of laws. That simple.
Oh and yes refusing to adhere and abide by a court order IS a crime. It is called contempt of court.
So if congress were to write a law further ignoring the 1st amendment, which demanded that you give public allegiance to Satan, you would follow it because it is the law? If congress wrote a law which required you to turn in your neighbor if you overhear them criticizing government, you would follow it?
You and your kind are
THE PROBLEM with our society today. Your so-called "Christian" values are overshadowed by your obeisance to government. Get a clue, you gutless wiener. GOVERNMENT IS NOT GOD!!!!! Our FIRST allegiance is ALWAYS to
God. And when the laws of government tell us to violate God's Law, then it is INCUMBENT on us, as Christians, to VIOLATE SECULAR LAW in favor of God's law. Kim Davis understand this, and she is willing to pay the price for standing for God. REAL Christians are behind her 1000%.
Further, as people devoted to the freedom of men, it is ALSO incumbent on us to violate bad laws.
Quote"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their RIGHT, IT IS THEIR DUTY to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
We may not be at the point of throwing off government, but we are DEFINITELY at the point where
Quote"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
(Thomas Jefferson)
I suggest you get your head out of the ass of your political masters (or pull their dicks out of your ass, whichever is more appropriate) before you find that suddenly they start passing laws which you DO care about. And then it will be too late, because you will have supported them arresting anyone else willing to support you.
Quote from: mrclose on September 07, 2015, 04:13:32 PM
Opinions are sometimes right, and sometimes wrong. But they aren't law.
In the early days of our government, Supreme Court opinions were so insignificant that Congress didn't bother preserving them. Opinions were left to individuals to keep track of, and were not congressionally-funded into official records until 1874, almost a century after our independence. Before Congress stepped in, Court records were printed and kept under copyright by private citizens and reporters, who sold them for profit.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.tinypic.com%2F5jwt3c.jpg&hash=b5664bbf9cdd55a1f8a6d665eff403d965f93839)
Thanks for that. I didn't understand this in this level, but I did know that the Supreme Court was the least powerful branch. Congress, the most powerful. How times have changed!
Quote from: zewazir on September 07, 2015, 04:13:07 PM
So if congress were to write a law further ignoring the 1st amendment, which demanded that you give public allegiance to Satan, you would follow it because it is the law? If congress wrote a law which required you to turn in your neighbor if you overhear them criticizing government, you would follow it?
You and your kind are THE PROBLEM with our society today. Your so-called "Christian" values are overshadowed by your obeisance to government. Get a clue, you gutless wiener. GOVERNMENT IS NOT GOD!!!!! Our FIRST allegiance is ALWAYS to God. And when the laws of government tell us to violate God's Law, then it is INCUMBENT on us, as Christians, to VIOLATE SECULAR LAW in favor of God's law. Kim Davis understand this, and she is willing to pay the price for standing for God. REAL Christians are behind her 1000%.
Further, as people devoted to the freedom of men, it is ALSO incumbent on us to violate bad laws. We may not be at the point of throwing off government, but we are DEFINITELY at the point where (Thomas Jefferson)
I suggest you get your head out of the ass of your political masters (or pull their dicks out of your ass, whichever is more appropriate) before you find that suddenly they start passing laws which you DO care about. And then it will be too late, because you will have supported them arresting anyone else willing to support you.
I think you need to keep that book by Dale Carnegie on "how to win friends and influence people." :lol:
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2015, 11:34:48 AM
Lets assume a law was passed that outlawed you right to voice an opinion on the issue.
Straw man.
QuoteWould you follow a bad law?
That's what this is, a usurpation of the Constitution, where SCOTUS actually wrote law and bypassed Congress to do it.
Read the First Amendment and understand exactly what it says about :Laws, Congress and Religion".
There is a reason the Founders believed it should be the First in a list of Ten, followed by our ability to defend them.
Rest of post rendered meaningless by said straw man.
Quote from: carlb on September 07, 2015, 12:24:33 PM
I have no doubt you would. If I were on the jury, they would walk. Ultimately WE decide. It'sccalled jury nullification.
Then you are no better than the idiots calling for the lynching of Darren Wilson.
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 07, 2015, 06:14:26 PM
Straw man.
Rest of post rendered meaningless by said straw man.
Wrong! Had I posed the question about SCOTUS writing law a year ago, you'd have claimed straw man then as well, because only Congress can write law.
So grow a set and answer the question.
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 07, 2015, 06:15:47 PM
Then you are no better than the idiots calling for the lynching of Darren Wilson.
I guess you and Dildo would have demanded the german people fully support the Nazis. After all, ITS THW LAW! They were ELECTED.
And now, we veer from straw man to reductio ad absurdum.
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 07, 2015, 06:39:07 PM
And now, we veer from straw man to reductio ad absurdum.
Is that all you've got, insults?
We're a debate forum, if you can't debate, don't expect to gain any credibility amongst the membership.
You're already hitting negative territory.
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2015, 06:47:06 PM
Is that all you've got, insults?
We're a debate forum, if you can't debate, don't expect to gain any credibility amongst the membership.
You're already hitting negative territory.
Smells offensively like a liberal! Seen his type of argument on those 3rd rated forums. :glare:
Quote from: keyboarder on September 07, 2015, 06:52:52 PM
Smells offensively like a liberal! Seen his type of argument on those 3rd rated forums. :glare:
Old Millennial, same thing. :biggrin:
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2015, 06:54:48 PM
Old Millennial, same thing. :biggrin:
Don't let him ruin what's left of our holiday. :popcorn:
As a side note, "evil prevails where good men do nothing".
The pastor of my church gave out copies of our church doctrine this past Sunday. The amended copy reiterates the church stand on gay marriage and homosexuality, further what action the church takes in matters of the same. I can tell you that our congregation stands in opposition to any criminal contempt charges against the lady in KY. :thumbup:
Quote from: keyboarder on September 07, 2015, 06:58:48 PM
Don't let him ruin what's left of our holiday. :popcorn:
When they figure out no one cares what they think, they usually move along on their own.
Quote from: keyboarder on September 07, 2015, 06:52:52 PM
Smells offensively like a liberal! Seen his type of argument on those 3rd rated forums. :glare:
I want illegal aliens rounded up and shot, guns sold to any non-felon over 18 cash-and-carry, and Obama living three cells away from Hillary. Yeah, really "liberal", dude. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 07, 2015, 06:14:26 PM
Straw man.
A hypothetical proposal is not strawman. Learn what a strawman argument is before applying the label to others.
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 07, 2015, 06:14:26 PM
Rest of post rendered meaningless by said straw man.
Answer the question. Would you, or would you not obey a law which is blatantly unconstitutional, unjust, and and/or plain wrong?
No...I would resign my position in order to not do so.
Quote from: daidalos on September 07, 2015, 12:20:20 PM
It did when it wrote the equal protection clause. And when it later passed the DomAct. As I've said time and time again, had the Congress kept it's nose out of the marriage business to start with. There would never have been the door opened to start with.
However Congress didn't, Congress decided to interject itself into the situation. And once the Supremes got involved, and now that's the law of the land. If we don't like that, we are totally free to continue going to church, and lobby to effect a change in the law.
We are not however, nor has any American ever been, free to simply ignore the law, because we don't agree with, or like it.
And yes, even when those laws, are contrary to our religious sensibilities.
For example, take abortion. Most Christians are, vehemently against the practice of abortion.
And yet, if those same Christians go and blow up the abortion clinic, to kill those who are performing abortions, we put them in jail as murderers.
Yet to hear some tell it now, in this instance, since they were acting on their religiously held belief, they shouldn't be in prison for murdering the Abortion Dr. That's what those who try to defend this clerk are saying.
Are you Fkg serious??????....you really want to compare some nut blowing up and abortion clinic with someone who is DEFENDING a clerk who wouldn't issue a gay marriage license.....A PIECE OF PAPER?
There is something majorly wrong with that type of comparison, lumping all Christians into full fledged terrorist nut bag status.
I really doubt there was a violation of the "law' at all, I mean the gays could go to some other jurisdiction and get a license, but N000000000, they have to screech to stars like 3 year olds who cant have a cookie.
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 07, 2015, 07:35:03 PM
No...I would resign my position in order to not do so.
And if the court said you had to give up your guns, would you?
Quote from: Dori on September 07, 2015, 07:41:56 PM
And if the court said you had to give up your guns, would you?
Sure, I would turn in all the ones that are registered. :cool:
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 07, 2015, 07:12:49 PM
I want illegal aliens rounded up and shot, guns sold to any non-felon over 18 cash-and-carry, and Obama living three cells away from Hillary. Yeah, really "liberal", dude. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
No, that makes you a bigoted ass hole.
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2015, 08:28:11 PM
No, that makes you a bigoted ass hole.
Hmm... Would that be a liberal bigoted ass hole?
Quote from: Solar on September 07, 2015, 08:28:11 PM
No, that makes you a bigoted ass hole.
Not to mention a nanny state butt kissing coward.
QuoteJudge in Davis Case Ordered Students 'Re-Educated' on Homosexuality
U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning, who jailed Kentucky clerk Kim Davis for refusing to obey an order to issue same-sex marriage licenses through her office, once ordered Kentucky students to be "re-educated" about homosexuality.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a lawsuit against the Rowan County clerk, in 2003 sued the Boyd County Board of Education to allow a "gay-straight" alliance club to be allowed to meet at a local high school, despite objections from parents, reports ChristianNews.net.
At first, court records show, the board suspended all student group meetings, but Bible and drama clubs met during the ban, so students with the gay-straight group contacted the ACLU, and Bunning eventually ordered the school board to allow the group to meet and be granted the same privileges other groups enjoyed.
In addition, Bunning ordered school staff and students to undergo diversity education, including on "issues of sexual orientation and gender harassment."
Students, though, objected to watching a video that said it is wrong to oppose homosexuality and that a person's sexuality can't be change, but discovered that they could not refuse without penalty, so they contacted the Alliance Defending Freedom organization for assistance, which in turn sued the board of education.
In 2006, Bunning ruled again that students must watch the video, saying the training did not mean they would have to change their religious beliefs.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Bunning's ruling in October 2007, saying that a student involved in the suit could seek damages from the school district and that the training "chilled" his ability to express his views on homosexuality.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/judge-kim-davis-reeducation/2015/09/07/id/675543/#ixzz3lA3Rbsk6
seems the judge has had his hand slapped in the past over bad directives over homosexual cases before him! Should he have recused himself from this case?
Quote from: redbeard on September 08, 2015, 08:32:59 AM
seems the judge has had his hand slapped in the past over bad directives over homosexual cases before him! Should he have recused himself from this case?
Sounds like this judge might be in the closet on his own situation and wants everything to be in the clear when he is hauled out of the closet. Never happen though, as long as there is one real life conservative around with a few morals. Like the lady in Ky!
Well, the Ky lady is being released. Don't know the details yet because I have been out all morning.
Quote from: keyboarder on September 08, 2015, 11:50:54 AM
Sounds like this judge might be in the closet on his own situation and wants everything to be in the clear when he is hauled out of the closet. Never happen though, as long as there is one real life conservative around with a few morals. Like the lady in Ky!
What's funny is she's a Democrat and the judge was appointed by Bush.
Quote from: zewazir on September 07, 2015, 07:30:30 PM
A hypothetical proposal is not strawman. Learn what a strawman argument is before applying the label to others.
Answer the question. Would you, or would you not obey a law which is blatantly unconstitutional, unjust, and and/or plain wrong?
What law is unconstitutional? The equal protection clause of the Constitution? That is what the Supreme court ruled on. This argument that something unconstitutional is going on, is bogus. The facts are, the Supreme court is the body that interprets the meaning of the Constitution. Not the perv hiring Tony Perkins of the Family rights council, nor this Clerk in Ky.
Quote from: daidalos on September 08, 2015, 12:29:00 PM
What law is unconstitutional? The equal protection clause of the Constitution? That is what the Supreme court ruled on. This argument that something unconstitutional is going on, is bogus. The facts are, the Supreme court is the body that interprets the meaning of the Constitution. Not the perv hiring Tony Perkins of the Family rights council, nor this Clerk in Ky.
What do you have on Tony Perkins? Let's see the proof that this man is anything but honorable.
Quote from: kroz on September 08, 2015, 12:44:39 PM
What do you have on Tony Perkins? Let's see the proof that this man is anything but honorable.
Josh Duggar. Mr. Perkins employed him to run his so called "family council". And please don't act like we all don't know who that is.
Quote from: daidalos on September 08, 2015, 12:52:24 PM
Josh Duggar. Mr. Perkins employed him to run his so called "family council". And please don't act like we all don't know who that is.
Josh Duggar did NOT run the Family Research Council. He was a very low rung on the ladder.
Many employers have unknowingly hired deceptive people. That does not make Tony bad at all!
I have been in Tony's office and given thousands$$ to his organization. It is one of the most reputable and effective conservative organizations in D.C. I cannot say enough good things about Tony and his organization.... totally above reproach!
You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Quote from: daidalos on September 08, 2015, 12:29:00 PM
What law is unconstitutional? The equal protection clause of the Constitution? That is what the Supreme court ruled on. This argument that something unconstitutional is going on, is bogus. The facts are, the Supreme court is the body that interprets the meaning of the Constitution. Not the perv hiring Tony Perkins of the Family rights council, nor this Clerk in Ky.
Still dancing I see, as well as avoiding the obvious.
Now give me a straight answer.
Quit dancing around the issue. One more time, SOTUS wrote law, only Congress can write law.
Show me where the Govt is in the right.
You do realize,
only Congress can write laws, right?
Did Congress violate the First? No, so how was it possible for SCOTUS to write law?
Come on Daidalos, you can do it, use that critical thinking, and give us a reasonable answering explaining how the govt had the right to do what they did.
First Amendment - Religion and Expression.
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.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Quote from: mrclose on September 08, 2015, 02:00:51 PM
Solar, daidalos and others are using the "Equal Protection Clause" as their talking point.
The problem that they have is .. Sodomites have exactly the same marriage and equality of protection that all of us have!
Sodomites are legally able to get married, just not to each other! :lol:
Yeah, using a bogus ruling to trample the Bill of Rights is by it's very nature illegal.
This fight isn't over by any stretch of the imagination.
Quote from: daidalos on September 08, 2015, 12:29:00 PM
What law is unconstitutional? The equal protection clause of the Constitution? That is what the Supreme court ruled on. This argument that something unconstitutional is going on, is bogus. The facts are, the Supreme court is the body that interprets the meaning of the Constitution. Not the perv hiring Tony Perkins of the Family rights council, nor this Clerk in Ky.
Where in the Constitution does it give the Supreme Court that power?
The Constitution says that
Congress has the power to set the limits of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.
In 1798, Virginia and Kentucky each passed a resolution declaring that
the states, not the Supreme Court, have the power to decide what is constitutional.
Quote from: mrclose on September 08, 2015, 02:00:51 PM
Solar, daidalos and others are using the "Equal Protection Clause" as their talking point.
The problem that they have is .. Sodomites have exactly the same marriage and equality of protection that all of us have!
Sodomites are legally able to get married, just not to each other! :lol:
Well they could get "married" to each other. It's not "ILLEGAL." Its just that the State didn't recognize their "marriage." Now the federal government does, and they're forcing the states to recognize homo "marriage" too.
Quote from: carlb on September 08, 2015, 03:23:59 PM
Well they could get "married" to each other. It's not "ILLEGAL." Its just that the State didn't recognize their "marriage." Now the federal government does, and they're forcing the states to recognize homo "marriage" too.
Therein lies the problem. The Constitution gives States autonomy on all issues not included in the Constitution.
SCOTUS cannot overrule the States on these matters.
But what do I know. I only read the Constitution! :ohmy:
Quote from: mrclose on September 08, 2015, 02:00:51 PM
Solar, daidalos and others are using the "Equal Protection Clause" as their talking point.
The problem that they have is .. Sodomites have exactly the same marriage and equality of protection that all of us have!
Sodomites are legally able to get married, just not to each other! :lol:
Just like blacks in 1966! :rolleyes:
Serious question: how does the fact that two men can get married affect YOU.
It's IMMORAL. It mocks marriage. As a citizen, I have the right to the same political representation as everybody else. States have rejected REDEFINING marriage. This court UNCONSTITUTIONALLY stepped in and IMPOSED its morality on the citizens of the states who rejected REDEFINING marriage
In Clark County (Springfield) Ohio,
Probate Judge Richard Carey says that gay marriage violates his Catholic faith,
so a Common Pleas judge agreed to take his place in such cases.
The ACLU sued. That was not acceptable to them.
The law says that the marriage license is to be signed by the PROBATE judge.
So the Probate judge started just using the court stamp on the documents.
The ACLU is suing again. They insist that THAT judge must sign HIS name on the document!
Quote from: carlb on September 08, 2015, 04:34:49 PM
It's IMMORAL. It mocks marriage. As a citizen, I have the right to the same political representation as everybody else. States have rejected REDEFINING marriage. This court UNCONSTITUTIONALLY stepped in and IMPOSED its morality on the citizens of the states who rejected REDEFINING marriage
One more time: how does the fact that two men can get married affect YOU.
Quote from: je_freedom on September 08, 2015, 05:04:15 PM
The ACLU is suing again. They insist that THAT judge must sign HIS name on the document!
The ACLU (American Communist Lawyers Union) has made it their mission to destroy Christianity in the United States.
Dismissing America's Christian Heritage
Attacking Religious Liberties
Silencing the Church
Advancing Sexual Anarchy
Redefining Marriage and Family
Promoting Obscenity
Promoting the Culture of Death
Impeding America's War on Terror
Looting the American Taxpayers
http://www.kennethgentry.com/indefensible-10-ways-the-aclu-is-destroying-america-by-sam-kastensmidt-sale-50/
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 08, 2015, 06:09:40 PM
One more time: how does the fact that two men can get married affect YOU.
One more time....or maybe about a few dozen in my particular case. The Whole gay rights thing is
not about equality but creating another privledged class of "victims" who can now claim they were discriminated against and demand special treatment.
I have repeated said this over the years and the fact that this woman was jailed over the issue proves it, Mess with a minority and now a Homo or Lesbo and the Govt will come down on you like a ton of bricks.
This means they now have
more rights than you do.Ponder this on the tree of woe. :popcorn:
Ridiculous. Why is she in jail?
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 07, 2015, 07:35:03 PM
No...I would resign my position in order to not do so.
How would they ever fill that drive-through position?
The real issue is the punishment and if the gay couples were actually denied anything.
Quote from: daidalos on September 08, 2015, 12:29:00 PM
What law is unconstitutional? The equal protection clause of the Constitution? That is what the Supreme court ruled on. This argument that something unconstitutional is going on, is bogus. The facts are, the Supreme court is the body that interprets the meaning of the Constitution. Not the perv hiring Tony Perkins of the Family rights council, nor this Clerk in Ky.
You can't even answer a simple hypothetical question? What's wrong? No oxygen inside the donkey's ass? Do you even understand the CONCEPT of hypothetical question? Or has sniffing all those donkey farts with your head up its ass fried what you laughingly call brain cells?
The FACTS are the Constitution says what it says. THERE IS NO INTERPRETATION other than what is actually written. What the Supreme Court is SUPPOSED to do is COMPARE written laws with what is written in the Constitution. This "interpretation" crap is just the humanist progressive end run around the Constitution.
You want REAL facts instead of your liberal twaddle? The FACTS are, there are no phrases, nor clauses, nor words, nor even implications which give federal authority over the definition of marriage. NONE. The FACTS are, there IS a section which SPECIFICALLY states that powers which are NOT SPECIFICALLY granted the federal government are RESERVED TO THE STATES OR THE PEOPLE.
Since there is nothing that grants federal authority to define marriage, then that power is reserved to the states. That is a FACT. The People of Kentucky (you know, government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE)** chose to write the definition of marriage. ANY FEDERAL INTERFERENCE WITH THAT DEFINITION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That INCLUDES the Supreme Court. Therefore ALL ACTIONS taken against the states with respect to the bogus, tyrannical, unconstitutional, and just plain WRONG Supreme Court decision are also unconstitutional.
As far as "equal protection" clause, name ONE WAY that marriage laws treat homosexuals differently. Under Kentucky's state constitution, NO ONE can marry a person of the same gender. Under Kentucky law, no one can marry their own children, either, nor nieces, nor nephews, nor 1st cousins, etc. etc. etc. There are NUMEROUS limitations on whom can marry whom, so the "discrimination" cries are, (as is typical of humanist progressives) just so many lies.
Bottom line: the Supreme Court acted in a manner which is unconstitutional. The federal judge who ordered Kim Davis to violate Kentucky law, and then jailed her for not doing as the petty tyrant commanded acted in a manner which is unconstitutional.
**As you and your sorry tyranny loving ilk have repeatedly demonstrated, you ONLY believe in "Government of the People, by the People, and for the People" if and only if the People agree with your scum sucking humanist principles. You claim to support democracy, and the voice of the People, but cry huge crocodile tears and lie, cheat, steal and murder if the democratic principle does not give you what you want.
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 08, 2015, 06:09:40 PM
One more time: how does the fact that two men can get married affect YOU.
It has nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with the Fed stepping on States Rights.
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 08, 2015, 06:09:40 PM
One more time: how does the fact that two men can get married affect YOU.
For me. I just ROTFLMAF.
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 08, 2015, 06:09:40 PM
One more time: how does the fact that two men can get married affect YOU.
The fact that they can get married is not the question that is being forced on all of us.
What is being forced on us is MANDATORY PARTICIPATION!
The couple in Oregon drove 15 miles out of their way, past numerous bake shops,
to find a target they could sue.
The media scoured
all of Indiana to find a pizzeria in a tiny, speck-on-the-map village,
and imported a rent-a-mob to shut them down.
They attacked this pizzeria over a HYPOTHETICAL "discrimination."
No couple had actually requested their pizza for a wedding reception!
The federal government, with NO authority from the Constitution,
is usurping from the states a power that the Constitution
clearly reserves "to the states, or to the people" - the power to define marriage.
The Supreme Court has legislated from the bench
a law that even the federal
legislature may not legislate!
The Supreme Court has short-circuited the legislative process!
The Supreme Court abolished the broader public discourse process
of society deciding its culture.
This ruling ranks right up there with Dred Scott on the list of lawless abominations!
Oh, and by the way, official recognition by the government,
on our behalf,
of something so especially offensive to God, brings his wrath on all of us.
Every nation in history that has openly accepted homosexuality,
and not at least kept it in the shadows, was violently destroyed.
Quote from: zewazir on September 08, 2015, 07:53:06 PM
You can't even answer a simple hypothetical question? What's wrong? No oxygen inside the donkey's ass? Do you even understand the CONCEPT of hypothetical question? Or has sniffing all those donkey farts with your head up its ass fried what you laughingly call brain cells?
The FACTS are the Constitution says what it says. THERE IS NO INTERPRETATION other than what is actually written. What the Supreme Court is SUPPOSED to do is COMPARE written laws with what is written in the Constitution. This "interpretation" crap is just the humanist progressive end run around the Constitution.
You want REAL facts instead of your liberal twaddle? The FACTS are, there are no phrases, nor clauses, nor words, nor even implications which give federal authority over the definition of marriage. NONE. The FACTS are, there IS a section which SPECIFICALLY states that powers which are NOT SPECIFICALLY granted the federal government are RESERVED TO THE STATES OR THE PEOPLE.
Since there is nothing that grants federal authority to define marriage, then that power is reserved to the states. That is a FACT. The People of Kentucky (you know, government of the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE, and for the PEOPLE)** chose to write the definition of marriage. ANY FEDERAL INTERFERENCE WITH THAT DEFINITION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That INCLUDES the Supreme Court. Therefore ALL ACTIONS taken against the states with respect to the bogus, tyrannical, unconstitutional, and just plain WRONG Supreme Court decision are also unconstitutional.
As far as "equal protection" clause, name ONE WAY that marriage laws treat homosexuals differently. Under Kentucky's state constitution, NO ONE can marry a person of the same gender. Under Kentucky law, no one can marry their own children, either, nor nieces, nor nephews, nor 1st cousins, etc. etc. etc. There are NUMEROUS limitations on whom can marry whom, so the "discrimination" cries are, (as is typical of humanist progressives) just so many lies.
Bottom line: the Supreme Court acted in a manner which is unconstitutional. The federal judge who ordered Kim Davis to violate Kentucky law, and then jailed her for not doing as the petty tyrant commanded acted in a manner which is unconstitutional.
**As you and your sorry tyranny loving ilk have repeatedly demonstrated, you ONLY believe in "Government of the People, by the People, and for the People" if and only if the People agree with your scum sucking humanist principles. You claim to support democracy, and the voice of the People, but cry huge crocodile tears and lie, cheat, steal and murder if the democratic principle does not give you what you want.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ....and that was after only the first paragraph. :rolleyes:
Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis Isn't Kentucky's Only Gay Marriage Holdout
snip~
There are three county clerks in Kentucky who have refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. But only one of them, Rowan County's Kim Davis, has been thrown in jail, celebrated by presidential candidates and become a national symbol of opposition to gay unions.
more @
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/why-arent-other-defiant-kentucky-clerks-joining-kim-davis-jail-n423496
Quote from: je_freedom on September 09, 2015, 08:16:01 AM
The fact that they can get married is not the question that is being forced on all of us.
What is being forced on us is MANDATORY PARTICIPATION!
The couple in Oregon drove 15 miles out of their way, past numerous bake shops,
to find a target they could sue.
Public accommodation laws are simply wrong.
QuoteThe media scoured all of Indiana to find a pizzeria in a tiny, speck-on-the-map village,
and imported a rent-a-mob to shut them down.
They attacked this pizzeria over a HYPOTHETICAL "discrimination."
No couple had actually requested their pizza for a wedding reception!
The federal government, with NO authority from the Constitution,
is usurping from the states a power that the Constitution
clearly reserves "to the states, or to the people" - the power to define marriage.
The Supreme Court has legislated from the bench
a law that even the federal legislature may not legislate!
The Supreme Court has short-circuited the legislative process!
The Supreme Court abolished the broader public discourse process
of society deciding its culture.
Not like it's new, dude. The Constitution has been pretty much dead for a long time.
QuoteThis ruling ranks right up there with Dred Scott on the list of lawless abominations!
Not even in the top 5 bad decisions in the last century.
QuoteOh, and by the way, official recognition by the government, on our behalf,
of something so especially offensive to God, brings his wrath on all of us.
Every nation in history that has openly accepted homosexuality,
and not at least kept it in the shadows, was violently destroyed.
This is not a theocracy.
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 09, 2015, 04:48:09 PM
Public accommodation laws are simply wrong.
Not like it's new, dude. The Constitution has been pretty much dead for a long time.
Not even in the top 5 bad decisions in the last century
This is not a theocracy.
No, its not a theocracy. Nobody said it was. We have CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED REPUBLIC. Honest people know the SC overstepped. Just because you agree with the outcome doesn't make what they did Constitutional.
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 09, 2015, 04:48:09 PM
Public accommodation laws are simply wrong.
Not like it's new, dude. The Constitution has been pretty much dead for a long time.
Not even in the top 5 bad decisions in the last century.
This is not a theocracy.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi162.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft270%2FEV1L1%2F114_bsflag.gif&hash=5a059a2d445aacde252953f628267aab09f2d8f3) Only A Liberal could say and believe that! Or a Romper Room kid.
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 09, 2015, 04:48:09 PM
This is not a theocracy.
ALL nations are judged by God, whether they acknowledge Him, or not.
America's founders did what they did out of devotion to God.
America WAS founded as a theocracy, if only in an informal sense.
America's founders kept church and state as separate institutions,
having seen Europe's experience with mixing the two.
(It was another example of the principle of "separation of powers.")
However, America's founders DID look to the Bible
for principles upon which to base American law.
Vermont took it a step farther.
The first act of the Vermont legislature
was to adopt the Bible to be the law of the state!
Early America was a THOROUGHLY Christian nation.
Today's situation of Christians being outsiders in American society
was caused by churches ABANDONING their place in society!
The churches abandoning God is what CAUSED America to abandon the Constitution!
"The old paths" have been abandoned for so long,
"returning to the old paths" is now like blazing a trail through virgin territory!
This post is about set to go into the Religion Forum.
The discussion went in that direction
because the Supreme Court inserted itself into defining marriage,
which is essentially a religious sacrament.
Leftists like to argue, "You can't legislate morality!"
But they're not the least bit bashful about legislating THEIR morality!
We have to fight the monster of politics in every realm they choose to invade!
Quote from: mrclose on September 09, 2015, 07:57:29 PM
As Captain Picard would say .. "Make It So"!
I am loaded and ready for bear!
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commonsenseevaluation.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2FBear-Necessity.jpg&hash=78de12ea9fdb471b500fe388347a22a9ebe17cec)
Quote from: walkstall on September 09, 2015, 07:42:11 PM
This post is about set to go into the Religion Forum.
Past due.
I have been more than annoyed by our consistently dishonest far left Media / Press. They use the tactics the Alinsky radical racist black activists use. They accuse anyone and everyone of racism. They call whites racist, The cite White hate, White Power etc: It's always a strawman argument. In the past few years Journalists, political pundits on TV news programs and discussions are very hostile toward Conservatives and / or Christians. I know that most of you must have heard by now - Conservatives / Christians called brown shirts, Nazi, extreme right wing, race monger, terrorist and on an on. My opinion Shepard Smith does a disgraceful duplication of that crap. The difference is his rhetoric is far more subtle but the intensity and meaning are in my opinion there.
Shepard Smith calls Christians Haters.
Accuracy in Media
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/shepard-smith-calls-christians-haters/?utm_source=AIM+-+Daily+Email&utm_campaign=email090915&utm_medium=email
Fox News - Shephard Smith is in my opinion more than biased against Christians. It is Shephard Smith that is the hater.
Perhaps the fact that he is a Homosexual is part of the reason for his subliminal rage. The Accuracy in Media article mentions the Out magazine.
If your curious to see it factually I have pasted the link below.
OUT MAGAZINE'S LIST OF HOMOSEXUALS
http://www.out.com/power-50/2015/4/15/power-50
SHEPARD SMITH IS NUMBER 20 ON THE LIST
http://www.out.com/power-50-2015
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 09, 2015, 04:48:09 PM
Public accommodation laws are simply wrong.
Not like it's new, dude. The Constitution has been pretty much dead for a long time.
Not even in the top 5 bad decisions in the last century.
This is not a theocracy.
For a nation not a theocracy, it's amazing how tolerant we are about differences in religious opinion. Islam beheads the "infidel," with criteria changing daily. Perhaps we should adopt their level of tolerance and start hanging liberals where we find them.
Oh, you say that's un-Christian? Which way do you want it here, anyway?
Quote from: walkstall on September 09, 2015, 07:34:58 PM
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi162.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft270%2FEV1L1%2F114_bsflag.gif&hash=5a059a2d445aacde252953f628267aab09f2d8f3) Only A Liberal could say and believe that! Or a Romper Room kid.
Only a blind man or a fool could deny it. The Constitution was pretty much killed by FDR. Look at the government and try to HONESTLY say otherwise.
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 12, 2015, 10:13:53 AM
Only a blind man or a fool could deny it. The Constitution was pretty much killed by FDR. Look at the government and try to HONESTLY say otherwise.
I will play your game. Only a blind liberal or a fool could say that the Constitutions is dead. You Lib's have been trying for years to kill It be HONEST about it.
Actually, I am for punishing violating the Constitution with death...but no, it is pretty much dead. The Supreme Court has ruled that it does not mean what it says. From Miller to Kelo to Obamacare, they openly ignore it.
Quote from: Jarlaxle on September 12, 2015, 11:05:52 AM
Actually, I am for punishing violating the Constitution with death...but no, it is pretty much dead. The Supreme Court has ruled that it does not mean what it says. From Miller to Kelo to Obamacare, they openly ignore it.
I understand your frustration but I don't think the Constitution is dead. I think there is a well organized, well funded group of people in our public sector working hard to subvert the law of the land and there is currently no effective opposition to that group of people. Look at what happened with Kim Davis.
Some people have made this about the First Amendment and religious freedom, so many in this thread that it was moved to the religion forum. I'm not saying they're wrong and I'm not trying to minimize the beliefs of others but arguing religious freedom in this case is a dead end. What happens if the religious freedom argument is accepted and honored? Basically nothing, the feds still get away with a non-sensical, contradictory ruling and their overreach is still in place because the applications will still be signed by someone in the clerks office. The fact that some clerks in Kentucky even bothered to appeal to their Governor, Brashear, to help them shows an astounding level of political naivety.
I'd love to see the feds run according to the law again but in my opinion there needs to be a cohesive, well thought out strategy on how to fight overreach by the feds and there doesn't appear to be right now.