United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Kentucky clerk still won't issue same-sex marriage licenses
Source:
Associated Press
URL Source: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/storie ... AULT&CTIME=2015-09-01-08-52-48
Published: Sep 1, 2015
Author: Claire Valofaro
Post Date: 2015-09-01 10:04:38 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 28900
Comments: 339
A county clerk in Kentucky has again refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, invoking her religious beliefs and "God's authority" - this time in defiance of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling against her. On Tuesday morning, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis' office denied the licenses to at least two couples. At first, Davis was in her office with the door closed and blinds drawn. But she emerged a few minutes later, telling the couples and the activists gathered there that her office is continuing to deny the licenses "under God's authority." The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in the case, leaving Davis no legal grounds to refuse to grant the licenses. A district judge could now hold her in contempt of court, which can carry steep fines or jail time. As an elected official, Davis can't be fired. Davis asked David Moore and David Ermold to leave her office after they were denied a license Tuesday morning - the couple's fourth rejection. They refused, surrounded by reporters and cameras. "We're not leaving until we have a license," Ermold said. "Then you're going to have a long day," Davis told him. From the back of the room, Davis' supporters said: "Praise the Lord! ... Stand your ground." Other activists shouted that Davis is a bigot and told her: "Do your job." Davis has said her deeply held Christian beliefs don't let her endorse gay marriages. She stopped issuing all marriage licenses in the days after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage across the nation. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued her, arguing that she must fulfill her duties as an elected official despite her personal religious faith. A federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses, and an appeals court upheld that decision. Her lawyers with the Liberty Counsel filed a last-ditch appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday, asking that they grant her "asylum for her conscience." Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees the 6th district, referred Davis' request to the full court, which denied the stay without comment. After Tuesday's denials, the rejected couples' supporters called the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit on their behalf. They asked that the attorneys file that day to have Davis held in contempt. Shortly after Davis' remarks in her office, the sheriff's office cleared the room and building of those gathered to support both sides of the issue. The two groups lined up on the lawn, on either side of the courthouse entrance to chant at each other. Davis' supporters have told her to "stand firm," while gay-rights activists shouted "do your job." Randy Smith, leading the group supporting Davis, said he knows following their instruction to "stand firm" might mean Davis goes to jail. "But at the end of the day, we have to stand before God, which has higher authority than the Supreme Court," he said. Ermold hugged Moore, his partner of 17 years, and they cried and swayed as they left the clerk's office. Davis' supporters marched by, chanting. "I feel sad, I feel devastated," Ermold said. "I feel like I've been humiliated on such a national level, I can't even comprehend it." 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-252) not displayed.
.
.
.
#253. To: Liberator (#251)
If I was diagnosed as having a mental issue I would be denied my 2nd Amendment rights, homos not so much... Talk about being thrown under the bus for ignoring plantation policies... Yup, funny-fascinating (like a train wreck) how the Left prioritizes its battles AND "enemies." Can the imprisonment of this principled female clerk be considered a "War-on-Straight Women (With-Uteri)"? Well, we can see the pecking order of the Left and exactly who represents the fish-head of their rotting food chain: 1) HOMOS *shock*
...homos not so much... How dare you insinuate that HOMOS have special rights!! Just because Down is UP? Gay is Good? You -- as an "evil, male heterosexual homophobe" -- are a just "Confederate gun-freak"! Ergo, turn in your 1A Card, 2A Card and 14A Card!
At the very least they are ignoring the hell out of her. There must be no money to be made for helping her out... You mean I'm not allowed to talk, carry or have any rights anymore??? Suppose, hypothetically, that the great state of Kentucky chose to make the issuance of marriage licenses optional by county. They could be issued to all, or nobody, at the county option. What is the Federal jurisdiction? What offense has the state committed to incur Federal sanctions? Certainly the state need not issue marriage licenses at all. The state could simply declare: if you check a block on a form that says you are married, then you are married. No licensing, no tracking, no ceremonies, nothing. That is what the states SHOULD do, and what the law SHOULD be: you are married if you say you're married. Period. If you and a woman say you are married, then you are - with all that entails before gods and men. However, if the formal state of marriage carries with it federal and state financial and legal benefits - and it does - then the state cannot impose undue burdens upon people seeking to obtain their federal rights. States should not be in the business of issuing marriage licenses at all. There should be no formal state process for marriage. Marriage is private, and should be thus. Nor should the state be in the business of "enforcing" marriage beyond the enforcement of any other contract. Marriage USED to matter because states enforced sexual laws: it was illegal to have sex out of wedlock, and they punished it. But those laws were religious based. Religion has faded from the law, so now it is not illegal to have sex outside of wedlock, though it is a breach of contract if you do it and you're married. Noe, the policing of marriage matters for Social Security benefits, estate law, and alimony law: property is assigned based on the existence of that contract. That was the chief benefit of the gays pressing so hard: now they get their partner's social security benefits. That's prety significant. The problem is that all of these laws and all of these theories hang on air and do not ultimately work out logically at the edges. Things end up being an assertion of power.
The grace of God washes away sin, yes. Indeed, grace alone. To be in that grace you must follow Jesus. Following Jesus means you must DO certain stuff, and NOT do certain other stuff. Otherwise you are not following Jesus. And if you are not following Jesus, you are not in a state of grace. One of the things he said you have to DO to be in a state of grace is to forgive other people their sins. Jesus said that this is a prerequisite to be forgiven your own. It's not optional. Forgive and be forgiven. Refuse to forgive, and you're not forgiven, because you're not obeying Jesus, and therefore are not in a state of grace, and do not have faith. If you have faith, you follow. If you do not follow, you do not have faith. To follow means to do what he said. He said so. He judges by deeds. He said that too.
So, what would a shrewd serpent of faith do? Well, first he would know the law, of God. Marriage is described in Genesis: one man, one woman, before God, sex = married, for life. There is no rite, no ritual. So, from a religious perspective, and from the true meaning of what marriage is, that, and only that, is marriage. God never added a thing to it - no rite, no requirement for clergy, or witnesses, or permission of anybody else. Men never liked that - because children following their own will can mess up dynastic plans. Guess what, dad, God never gave you the authority to impose your dynastic dreams on your children's genitals. There is plenty of force evident in the Bible stories, buying and selling people, all of that, but God does not sanction it. So, the TRUE answer is that this thing of the state called a "marriage license" is properly called a "benefits license". Two people can pay for this license, and it entitles them to tax advantages and survivorship advantages. Since they're already married anyway, and have paid taxes into the kitty for these things, there is no spiritual reason NOT to pay for the benefits license and get financial and legal subsidies from the state. It's advantageous. But there is no religious crisis created when the state decides to give those benefits to gays too. The religious crieis comes from the tolerance out unmarried sex. All sex that is not between married people is sin: heterosexual or homosexual fornication or adultery (masturbation is merely an uncleanness that abates with the setitng of the sun). The state is secular, not Christian, and does not punish sexual liberty. It gives the benefits license to couples, gay or straight. It has the word "marriage" written on it, but they may as well write "immortality" on it: men cannot define these words, they're defined by God. Therefore, the shrewd serpent of faith will recognize that most of the people who buy the benefits license have already been married for a long time. They committed to each other in private and had sex long ago: they're married. They don't think they are, because of traditions, but they are. They haven't had the meaningless ceremonies yet, which make them think they're married, but they are, in fact, already married. On the other hand, the gays who come in to get the franchise, or adulterers - people who are "remarrying" after divorce (divorce does not actually exist before God - so these "remarriages" are really just open and notorious declarations of a permanent, public state of adultery, with benefits) - these people are just paying money for a benefits license. That's all it really is. It is very much like Paul and meat sacrificed to idols. He knew that the idols have no power, and that it's superstition and untrue, and THEREFORE there really is no such thing as "meat sacrificed "to" an idol", there was just delusion on the part of the people doing the sacrifice. Therefore, Paul knew that it was perfectly licit for him to eat that meat - it's just meat. But other people, superstitious Christians, who might see it and who might not have the capacity to realize that idols are fake so meat sacrificed "to" them is just meat...their faith might be shaken by seeing an apostle eat meat "sacrificed to" an idol. So Paul urged caution, so as to not become a stumbling block. Davis' proper position is: these marriage licenses are misnamed - they're not really licenses to marry, they're receipts for the purchase of tax benefits. And she should issue them, because she's not really participating in gay marriage, any more than Paul was adoring an idol by eating meat from the marketplace sacrificed to the idol. The idol isn't real, and therefore the meat is not tainted. Just because the people doing the act THINK they are channelling other gods doesn't mean they ARE, because the other gods do not exist. People who know that do not have to incovnenience their own lives, at all, because of other people's delusive superstitions. Paul knew that meat was meat, and that somebody "sacrificing it to an idol" was nonsense. And Susan Davis knows, or ought to know, that marriage is a man and a women committing to each other and having sex before God - that is a marriage, nothing else. These "marriage licenses" are misnomers, idols that silly people declare. They're not real. They don't do harm. The harm is done by the illicit sex these people are having. That is the sin. But issuing or not issuing the license isn't going to stop the sin: nobody is waiting on a marriage license in order to have gay sex, or most straight sex either for that matter. The shrewd serpent of faith would shrug her shoulders, laugh at the idiocy, sell the benefits licenses that have "marriage" stamped on them, and focus on her church and tell the Church that it should be marrying people without these fake licenses. That's the proper answer. Do not destroy yourself because pagans are nuts. Remember what is true, and ignore the pagan nonsense as you go about your business. When Paul was hungry, when he was not in the company of other Christians, he ate meat from the marketplace without a care as to whether it had been "sacrificed to idols" or not. Because the idols are not real, and therefore the sacrifices are not real, and the idiots performing the sactifice can neither make the meat holy through the power of a god who isn't there, nor render it unholy either, through their own stupidity. It's just meat. A "marriage license" isn't REALLY a license to marry at all. It's a misnomer chosen by pagans for silly pagan reasons. Davis should ignore the nonsense, sell the pagans their pieces of paper if they want them, and take home the paycheck to her family, where it is needed. That is the correct answer. She chose a far less shrewd one, so she's sitting in a jail cell on a principle that is protecting against, well, selling things of no significance. It's too bad, but I do hope she sees it through. She wasn't subtle as a serpent, so now she's going to have to deal with a lot of unneccessary crap. I hope she endures and, in the process, causes millions of Christians to lose their faith in the legal system and constitutional structure of the United States. That is the good that can come out of this martyrdom: Christians can be aroused to see that the USA is an evil country with a bad system of law and government, and to lose their loyalty to it, and transfer that loyalty to God and their families, where it belongs.
Since when does the state speak for god(s) - except for Obama's administration that is. "The problem is that all of these laws and all of these theories hang on air and do not ultimately work out logically at the edges. Things end up being an assertion of power." Bingo. The only rights that one has are those that he can defend. When might makes right one is usually f*cked big time. The status quo will be maintained until someone or something mightier comes along (e.g. - a superior outside force, a successful internal revolution) but that only changes who becomes the f*cker and who becomes the f*ckee. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
There is no rite, no ritual. So, from a religious perspective, and from the true meaning of what marriage is, that, and only that, is marriage. God never added a thing to it - no rite, no requirement for clergy, or witnesses, or permission of anybody else. Are you kidding? God presided over and conducted the first marriage ceremony which was Adam and Eve's. Annointed members of Judeo-Christian religions have just been following God's lead and representing Him by performing marriages within their respective faith. However there is one big difference, God commanded that Adam and Eve marry, He gave them no choice in the matter. This was the first shotgun weeding in recorded history. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I established it. When he wants SPECIAL TREATMENT for faggots. When he lies and says they were born that way. When he says they can be married. Children can read that and take him seriously. So Pete needs to quit being a hypocrite and a liar, and stop posting pedophile propaganda.
You're an a-hole. Do you think you'll make the LGBT types disappear 'cuz you hate them and want them done away with? Good luck with that. Those married ones deserve the right to be as miserable as you are.
I am not kidding. God, in his law, goes into agonizing detail about every aspect of ritual and sacrifice - HOW it is to be done, WHO is to do it, the lobes of the liver to cut, where to pour the blood, how to salt the grain. He even killed two sons of Aaron for burning incense at the wrong time. God specific every rite, and told men not to add to the law. And guess what never appears in the Law: ANY rite of marriage. Nothing. The Aaronic priests are assigned no part in marriage. Neither are the Levites. No ceremony is described, no vow, nothing. So, it is all well and good that Jews and Christians have developed human traditions to solemnize marriage. But it is a sin to claim that passage through these mere human traditional rites is in any way necessary for marriage. God established no rite, which means that THERE IS NO RITE. And adding a rite to the law is a sin. It's not a sin to haver a tradition and follow it because you like it. It IS a sin to claim that the tradition is mandatory, or anything other than a mere human tradition, for that is all there is. As far as shotgun weddings go, Adam accepted Eve from the moment he saw her. This one is flesh of my flesh.
In a very real sense one can reasonably argue that the creation of Eve was in fact a marriage ceremony. And certainly one can reasonably argue that the proclaimation of man cleveing to his wife was in fact a ceremony, a rite. Genesis 2:23-24King James Version (KJV) 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. If that last sentence is not a rite then nothing is. But perhaps you are saying that Adam instituted thiss rite not God? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You really are insane,so it's no surprise you don't understand how nuts you look to everyone else. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Just where was it established that Pete is "spreading -- pedophile philisophy"? Just above, I read a post where he wrote the opposite. -- So I don't think the issue is 'established' at all, it's still being argued. He has his opinions, -- you have yours. BFD... Get serious yourself. Kids aren't reading this forum, and in any case, no one is posting pedophile propaganda.. Sorry, but I think you're hyping up the issue.
I'm pretty sure he meant to use his teachings in wise manner, stick up for what you believe in not be a wimp like some want to interpret... Sometimes the "inconvenient way" is the only way to get things done, she's gonna try and bring this to a head and let the chips fall where they may. I would say she is counting on support from those that feel the same way she does. She may lose but I don't think that is going to matter as long as it opens the eyes of the public as to what is "really going on" in the government... She is fighting for her and everybody else in this country to maintain their religious rights. As other people have brought up in this and other threads there are things (abortion, birth control) that are the law of the land and those laws are being ignored by those who have deep religious convictions, this one "SHOULD" be too and she knows it!!! One doesn't seem to care about living their lives they way they want to live them and the other (for the most part) still desires that freedom. And are willing to defend those freedoms not count on someone else to do it for them!!! SOSO, please don't be so contentious. For pages and pages I've written what? I've written that God instituted marriage, and it was one man, one woman, before God, sealed by sex. I said that THAT is marriage, and was, since the beginning. I have always been talking about Adam and Eve. And I have been always saying that THAT, the marriage of Adam and Eve, is the ONLY FORM OF MARRIAGE God EVER prescribes in the Bible. You think you're quarreling with me, but you're actually agreeing with me, you just don't realize it. THAT is marriage, and THAT is ALL that is required: Man, Woman, God, sexual intercourse. THAT is marriage. No priest is required. The state has nothing to say about it. That has been my point all along. It's THAT realization that OUGHT to allow Christians to come off the ramparts and not go to jail because of a "marriage license", which REALLY is just a "tax relief contract" for people who are married. The state CLAIMS to give them permission to marry, but it does not. The church CLAIMS to be necessary for marriage, but it IS not. In a world in which secularism and corruption, including the corruption of religion, beats down everywhere, the only way OUT for Christians is to shake off their traditional torpor and easy acceptance of traditions, actually LOOK at what God REALLY SAID, and then positively assert, in their own lives, that what GOD SAID actually IS the law, and IS the only requirement, and that ALL of the rest of it: state marriage licenses, and clergy who now require state marriage licenses to marry you, is NOT required at all to be married - and that anybody who says either of those things IS required for a true marriage is full of bullshit. THAT has been my POINT. Because you're contentious and just want to bicker with me no matter what I write, you THINK you're poking a hole in what I said, but what you are doing is confirming it. The "rite" of marriage is in Genesis, yes. You've written it out, yes. There is no church or government or other men in it, is there? No. One man, one woman, God, and sex. That's marriage.
That America is an independent country at all, and not just another Scotland to Great Britain, is BECAUSE the French were willing to fight, bleed, die - and bankrupt themselves - making that happen. The French FOUGHT the Nazis in 1939 and 1940, and the Free French kept fighting them throughout the war. What were the Americans doing? Being neutral, while the world was devoured by Nazis, all the way until December, 1941. The Americans were NOT willing to fight the evil UNTIL the evil attacked them. The French declared war on Hitler when he invaded Poland. Where was America? Had the Americans done the right thing and declared war on the side of freedom in Fall 1939, Hitler would have been finished in the Spring of 1940, and all the rest of the horror would have never happened. Americans were exactly like the Soviets: they stayed out and LET the Nazis and the Fascists and the Japanese devour the free world all the way up to the point that, finally, the Nazis and the Japanese attacked THEM. The US didn't declare war on Hitler. Hitler declared war on the US. There is no heroism in what the US did. The US was attacked, like the USSR, and the USSR and USA, together, as allies, great big countries, finally stomped out Hitler and Tojo and Mussolini. France had 42 million people. Germany had in excess of 60 million, plus their Italian allies and the resources pillaged from Poland. Just how the hell were the French going to stand alone against the Nazi juggernaut? The Soviets were unable to also. It took an ALLIANCE to bring down Hitler. And the only people brave enough to see that Hitler had to be STOPPED, by force, were the British and the French - THEY declared war on Hitler when he invaded Poland. America didn't. Russia didn't. America won. So did the USSR. They won because they were big. They entered the war only because they were attacked. There was nothing heroic at all about America or the USSR sitting there in 1939 and 1940 and 1941 while Hitler conquered Europe. The French fought, and lost. The Poles fought, and lost. The British fought, and would have lost but for the water. The Americans and Soviets were cowards who refused to fight the evil. They only entered because the evil dragged them into it, and then they lost a lot more than they ever had to, because they let the Nazis grow to massive size.
Then if we are talking about impeachment for " failure to perform the duties of their office ", then that should be applied to Ovomit, and to Congress, and other Federal Officials. If we are going to be so pure to apply that to this clerk, then it should be applied to the officials higher up the ladder. Until Ovomit & members of Congress are marched out in handcuffs, I call BS on anyone expressing what they seem to think of as righteous indignation by calling for her impeachment. Otherwise, it is just as I said BS !!! Will they be impeached? Of course not! Because those with the ability & authority to do so are exactly like the citizenry, a bunch of spineless, ball less, candy ass wimps!!! And that is why our nation will go the way of the Roman Empire, into the dustbin of history! Spit! Si vis pacem, para bellum
I was kinda eluding to the fact that its up to the people to deal with her not the feds. It pisses me off that Hillary has clearly violated the law and nothing is being done about it but this lady stands on principle and is going to be hammered with everything the federal government can mustard.
No, it is not. A man must also leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. For all your citation and translations you conveniently fail or refuse to use the full breadth of your intellect. The words are right in front of you. I don't understand why you choose to ignore them. God deemed this so, not just for Adam and Eve but for anyone that wishes to enter into a conforming marriage in His eyes. As for the need for a priest, the issue appears to be whether or not there needs to be a witness other than God to the couples' intent to marry. In the case of Adma and Eve God was a witness as were the Angels I presume. The fact is there was no-one else nor any state to witness the marriage. It seems ridicules that God would address a non-existent condition. However any rational reading of Genesis 2:23-24 supports the consclusion that the instrucrion to leave one's parents and cleve to the spouse is a ritual of sorts that is binding on Adam and Eve's progeny. As for Adam and Eve's children, well for sure Adam and Eve by definition were a witness to their chidrens' marriages as they were the parents that were left by their children to cleave to a spouse. I concede that the ceremonies that we witness today are more grandious than need be but disagree that consensual sexual intercourse without the leaving and cleaving consitutes a marriage in God's eye and to His will. I also disagree that a marriage in God's eye does not have to be witnessed by other than just God if at all practical. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
The US was not going to sit out that war and you know it you just say that because a small percentage of Americans wanted to stay out of it. Roosevelt knew America was going to have to get involved in the war and started preparing for it. I wouldn't be afraid to say the oil embargo and freezing of the Japanese assets were meant to get Japan to attack the US so Roosevelt could come riding to the rescue in Europe... And used what to kick Hitlers ass a couple hundred thousand ill equipped military personnel??? LOL... If they had paid attention to what the "Little Corporal" was saying they would have known Hitler was gonna come their way, he wanted retribution and their money... They only have themselves to blame for not being more prepared. And after seeing how Hitler took care of Poland they ignored that and put their faith in good old WW1 trench tactics. That weren't going to work 20 years after the Allies showed how to defeat them, did they think the Germans ignored that lesson??? Oh wait never mind they did think that!!! The Brits should have pulled out when they had the chance especially after they found out how the French were going to fight... Have you ever signed a contract? "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
No I'm not. I used one quote from Paul. And the quote compliments what I quoted from Jesus Christ. You are engaging in eisegesis. You que in on a few verses from Christ and apply your theological approach. I used wide sections of Scriptures from both the OT and NT and showed their consistent message. That is exegesis. I never claimed that people who do not forgive others are in right standing with God. Instead I showed scriptures where the truly born from above have the love of Christ indwelling them. As such, forgiveness is not an exercise of following stereo instructions but a deeply and loving commitment to the very Grace bestowed by God. If we don't forgive we never knew Him. We don't believe His promises if we don't follow His Light. But I do forgive you for misrepresenting my comments. Forget about it. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
The way I observe this issue? If someone who claims they have the Grace of God and are forgiven their sins, then turns to another not extending our own to them...That person must seriously pray and examine their lives. Putting ourselves in "the shoes" of one who has offended us just for a few minutes is a useful exercise. We then say "how would I want to be treated or handled in this matter." If I am not mistaken, the above is an example of the second commandment of love. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
What the HELL is Kim Davis doing working for a secular government when she wants to impose her own values upon others? Isn't this a form of hypocrisy?
She's collateral damage from a tyrannical court who things they are the supreme being who can define marriage.
"The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
She should have quit her job and renounced any affiliation with the government. Instead she chose to continue to receive a paycheck while pretending to perform her job making up rules.
Why should she quit? The sodomites could have gone to another county to get a license. Davis was the county clerk before the SCOTUS played God again. Abortion is legal but most doctors refuse to perform them. So the murderous woman can find another doctor. Just as Neal and Bob could have found a pro sodomite county clerk. If SCOTUS declared all butchers must serve pork, a Jewish butcher has a right to refuse. No matter how you look at it, a pulled pork sandwich is not corned beef. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
What is the addition in this? That he must leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife? Of course. Where is the Church rite or state ritual in this? There is none. Ritual? You marry, you live with your wife, and your wife is your first duty. There is no mention of witnessing. You've added something to the law. You've dug in on it. Nothing more to speak of here, really. Believe what you want - you're going to anyway.
The US DID sit out of the war, refusing to stand with the free world as it was devoured by the Nazis, country after country. The Czechs and Slovaks, the Poles, the Danes and Norwegians, the Dutch, Luxembourgeois and Belgians. Then the French. Then the Yugoslavs and Greeks. Then Russians. Britian was in terrible danger in 1940, and US ships were being torpedoed, but the US still did not stand up to fight Hitler. In the end Hitler declared war on the US, and dragged the US in. It is not heroic to stand by while the free world is butchered and bombed, to let the threat grow to titanic proportions, and then fight when the threat that you allowed to grow strong by your own fecklessness attacks you. That's what the US did. It was a good thing we were dragged into the war, lest the Nazis win. But the Nazis never should have gotten control of the Low Countries, let alone France or been able to burn down London. The US should have been there from the beginning. Had the US been there, Czechoslovakia wouldn't have been invaded. Or if it had been, Hitler would have been out of power before the first shot was fired in Poland.
The military forces which the mobilized United States would have immediately begun to churn out and send to Europe. The Air Forces that existed and could be deployed.
Like you don't? My last word on the subject is to suggest you read the traditional Catholic rite of marriage especially the part that begins: "Priest: Name) and (name), have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage?" Will you honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives?" "Do you....take this....... in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love and honor her all the days of your life?" Then Bride and Groom pledge to each other in the following words (placing the wedding ring on his wife's ring finger): "(Name), take this ring as a sign of my love and fidelity. This sure sounds like cleaving to me. You may have the last word on this subject. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Japan attacked Pearl Harbon on December 7th and the U.S. Declared war on Japan. A day later Germany declared war on the U.S.
Psalm 37
Yes, the Germany declared war on the US. The US did not declare war on Nazi Germany. In 1938 the Nazi Germans invaded Czechoslovakia, and the US did nothing. The British and French negotiated with Germany because they did not want to fight. But the Germans pressed on, into Poland. And so France and Britain declared war - to stop the Nazis. They failed. The Soviets divvied up Poland and attacked Finland, and then the Nazis overran Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg, all free countries. America did nothing. Germany lunged into France, America's oldest ally. America did nothing. The English lost most of an army and all of their equipment, and the Germans began to level British cities. Nazi submarines tore up British - and American - shipping. And the Americans stayed out of the war. The Nazis overran Yugoslavia and Greece, and the Americans stayed out. The Nazis plunged deep into Soviet Russia, threatening to conquer it and, with it, Europe. The Americans stayed out. Japan attacked the US. The US replied by declaring war on Japan, not Germany. Had Hitler not declared war, the US would not have come after Germany first. Maybe eventually. Maybe not.
Psalm 37. Yes.
Comments (294 - 339) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYES homosexuals DO have "rights" that the rest of us don't.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#254. To: CZ82 (#242)
You know it's kinda funny that the women's rights groups haven't gotten involved in this, for the obvious reason she is an anatomically correct woman and also a Democrat!!!
2) HOMOS
3) HOMOS
#255. To: CZ82 (#253)
If I was diagnosed as having a mental issue I would be denied my 2nd Amendment rights...
#256. To: Liberator (#254)
Can the imprisonment of this principled female clerk be considered a "War-on-Straight Women (With-Uteri)"?
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#257. To: Liberator (#255)
Ergo, turn in your 1A Card, 2A Card and 14A Card!
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#258. To: nolu chan (#250)
Where is a federal constitutional requirement for states to issue marriage licenses. If a state chooses not to issue marriage licenses, where is the federal jurisdiction to require them to do so?
#259. To: Liberator (#246)
#260. To: CZ82 (#239)
As shrewd as serpent, and freewill do very much apply.
#261. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#258)
That is what the states SHOULD do, and what the law SHOULD be: you are married if you say you're married. Period. If you and a woman say you are married, then you are - with all that entails before gods and men.
#262. To: Vicomte13, CZ82, redleghunter, Liberator, nolu chan (#260)
Well, first he would know the law, of God. Marriage is described in Genesis: one man, one woman, before God, sex = married, for life.
#263. To: Liberator (#251)
#264. To: tpaine (#199)
Just where was it established that Pete is "spreading -- pedophile philisophy"?
#265. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#264)
I established it. When he wants SPECIAL TREATMENT for faggots. When he lies and says they were born that way. When he says they can be married.
#266. To: SOSO (#262)
#267. To: Vicomte13 (#266)
ANY rite of marriage. Nothing.
#268. To: A K A Stone (#264)
So Pete needs to quit being a hypocrite and a liar, and stop posting pedophile propaganda.
#269. To: A K A Stone (#264)
I established it. When he wants SPECIAL TREATMENT for faggots.
When he lies and says they were born that way. When he says they can be married.
Children can read that and take him seriously.
So Pete needs to quit being a hypocrite and a liar, and stop posting pedophile propaganda.
#270. To: Vicomte13 (#260)
(Edited)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#271. To: Vicomte13 (#179)
So yes, there are differences between France and America. No, they don't count for much.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#272. To: SOSO (#267)
If that last sentence is not a rite then nothing is. But perhaps you are saying that Adam instituted thiss rite not God?
#273. To: CZ82 (#271)
One doesn't seem to care about living their lives they way they want to live them and the other (for the most part) still desires that freedom. And are willing to defend those freedoms not count on someone else to do it for them!!!
#274. To: nolu chan (#247)
" failure to perform the duties of her office. It does not invoke Federal jurisdiction for discrimination. It can bring impeachment. "
#275. To: nolu chan (#134)
She can't be fired. She is an elected official. The only way to remove her is to impeach her in the Kentucky House of Representatives and convict her in the Senate. I heard (have not confirmed) the KY legislature was out of session and there were no plans at this time to recall them.
#276. To: Vicomte13 (#272)
THAT is ALL that is required: Man, Woman, God, sexual intercourse. THAT is marriage.
#277. To: Vicomte13 (#273)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#278. To: Vicomte13 (#273)
Had the Americans done the right thing and declared war on the side of freedom in Fall 1939, Hitler would have been finished in the Spring of 1940, and all the rest of the horror would have never happened.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#279. To: Vicomte13 (#273)
Just how the hell were the French going to stand alone against the Nazi juggernaut?
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#280. To: Vicomte13 (#205)
By swearing an oath at all, she defied Jesus' commandment not to swear oaths.
#281. To: Vicomte13 (#203)
You are reading Paul to cancel Jesus
#282. To: Liberator (#246)
Isn't it our belief in Jesus' promise that our sin is covered by His blood along with our repentance as the sinners that we ALL that we're promised Eternal Life? That's called "Grace." If anyone believes they are at any second or minute in their lives "sinless" by their own volition, they are believing a lie.
#283. To: redleghunter, Liberator (#282)
#284. To: buckeroo (#283)
#285. To: redleghunter (#284)
#286. To: buckeroo (#285)
#287. To: SOSO (#276)
No, it is not. A man must also leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife. For all your citation and translations you conveniently fail or refuse to use the full breadth of your intellect. The words are right in front of you. I don't understand why you choose to ignore them. God deemed this so, not just for Adam and Eve but for anyone that wishes to enter into a conforming marriage in His eyes.
#288. To: CZ82 (#277)
#289. To: CZ82 (#278)
(Edited)
And used what to kick Hitlers ass a couple hundred thousand ill equipped military personnel??? LOL...
#290. To: Vicomte13 (#287)
Believe what you want - you're going to anyway.
#291. To: Vicomte13 (#288)
#292. To: Don (#291)
#293. To: Don (#291)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]