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

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

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.   

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.