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.

Like looking up the word redundant, and it lists "Idiot liberal" as an example.

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.

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!