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: 28709
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 (1-36) not displayed.
.
.
.
#37. To: cranky (#0)
Kim Davis - thrice divorced, is invoking "her" religious beliefs.... What would be the reaction if she were Muslim? What a circus. "we are tartets from evil doers!!!" [ and ] U looked up birfer on the dcitionary. It isn't a movie. "Listen piece of shit. Call me anti American again and your're banned. I don't like you." - aka stoned -
Will she pay a high price? Very possible. Will she win in the end? Probably not in the eyes of the world. Will she hold her head high, standing by her conscience? It seems yes, she will. Perhaps. But the judge probably will not target her liberty only. He will start to fine her, and drain away her personal assets. Which means that when she leaves jail, she will be left homeless and destitute. Nobody takes on the federal government head to head, defies the federal courts, and wins. Nobody. Ever. The government can be defeated in court, but once the court decides, it enforces its will, and it never lets anybody get away with thwarting it. There was some guy in New York who sat in jail for, what was it?, 14 years, for contempt, without having ever been tried, because the judge jailed him for contempt until he complied with an order. This lady is taking a courageous stand, but she is quite doomed. She cannot win this fight - it's too public, against too strong a foe, who will be determined. And her position is not perfectly right. She's mixing religion and public office in a way that it does not HAVE to be mixed - meaning that Christians CAN see a way around this mess. I've already written about it. So it will come down to a test of power. On the one side there will be a determined federal government - in particular, a determined federal judiciary. There will be a lot of determined public support for the gays. On the other side will be a minority that backs her, including Christians who think there really is a way through this without the head on confrontation she has chosen. It reminds me of the choice many people are insisting upon: to fight the anchor baby phenomenon by simply disregarding the 14th Amendment and pretending it says what it does not say. That is bad ground. It's a battleground on which the fight cannot be won. This woman is fighting the secular state over the performance of secular duties in a secular job. She considers it to be a religious principle for which she is fighting, and many do, but all of the religious - myself included - do not agree that it really IS a religious principle. Marriage is not, in fact, something that requires the state or a church at all. So she is not going to get some sort of unified Christian backing...because when you get right down to it, she's wrong both legally and theologically. It is painful to see her destroy herself like this. She should resign. But if she will not, then she's going to be pounded to pieces by the law and made a terrible example of, and in the process, the weakness of the Christian response will demonstrate the real weakness of traditional Christianity in American government, and result in further losses. That may be salutary. Because of our own hypocrisy, we Christians lost control of the culture. We are not going to wrest back control by destroying ourselves trying to defend traditions, and traditions of control, that do not in fact have their roots in Biblical truth. We have got to turn our eyes to the actual LAW of God, and be CONSISTENT (for once) about insisting on all of that. And frankly, the law of God does not set well at all with American marriage traditions, or with American economic traditions, or with American traditions about law enforcement and punishment and trials, or with American traditions of military assertiveness. Our American traditions are at odds with what God said in the Bible in so very many ways, so we cannot, in fact, rely upon His aid in fighting battles for our traditions, because our traditions are, in fact, heavily adulterated with evil. We are finding ourselves now in a time of great sorting, and the Christians who deluded themselves into believing the America was some sort of "New Israel" with some sort of special relationship with God are going to find their traditional beliefs destroyed, because they are not true. America is nothing more than another Gentile state, so unimportant in God's eyes that it is never mentioned in any prophesy. It's been evil - in a Christian law sense - for its entire history, and it deserves the judgment it is getting. One cannot serve both America and Christ. Time was that Americans deceived themselves into believing they could, because it was easy then, there was fat in the land. But that was burnt up by immorality, including hard-minded and closed-minded Christian hypocrisy about money, peace and the fair treatment of others. A monstrously unfair and bloody state became powerful, but had no discipline, and is now decaying around us. To the extent that Christianity tied itself to it, Christianity must now dissociate itself from America, for America is proceeding with a will to formally dissociate itself from Christianity. Faced with the choice between Christ and God's law and America, Christians must scrape off America like shit off a boot and remain with God, or simply melt into the Gentiles and fade with the fading of this never-ever-truly-Christian nation. A Christian nation does not obtain its land through genocide. A Christian nation does not enslave a quarter of its population. A Christian nation does not impose racial apartheid. And all of that was during the period when America was overwhelmingly self- identifying as Christian. A Christian nation does not kill 2 million babies per year. Was America still "Christian" in 1973? A Christian nation does not engage in endless imperial wars. America has called itself a Christian nation, but that was an insult to Christ. It has NEVER been a Christian nation, at any point in its existence. It was a Gentile nation that, for most of its history, was populated by Christian hypocrites who trammeled on the most basic of God's laws in open, violent and horrific ways. Indeed, the nation itself was ACQUIRED by crimes against humanity and against God. We have a tradition of hypocritically CALLING OURSELVES a Christian nation, and then wrapping Christ in the American flag. But those days are done. Christians have always been divided, and Christian principles have never ruled. And today, the non-Christians are unwilling to even allow the symbols of Christianity to remain over the state. So this poor, deceived, deluded woman will stand for a principle regarding marriage licenses that, in fact, doesn't really have anything to do with God and his laws - which she and others have merely confused in their minds with God's law because of history and tradition. But in taking on the very real and very determined power of the US federal judiciary, she will be destroyed. And those who rally for her cause will see a stinging defeat. Unfortunately for her, those who rally to her cause will not, after she is stripped of everything, dig down into their own financial resources and the resources of their churches to buy her a replacement house for the one she loses when she fights this fight to the end and is left destitute. She will be a martyr for a cause that she and they imagine is Christian, but is really related to a national tradition, and when she is financially destroyed by it, the Christians will follow their national tradition of Christianity and not deplete their own wealth to reimburse her for having fought the fight. She will lose, and the sagging credibility of hypocritical Christianity will suffer a further devastating blow, because nobody else will be willing to stand up to the government on such principles again, seeing how this poor woman is wiped out. Really want to stand up for Christian truth? Then stop going to the state to get married. Marry by taking two to the Church and presenting yourselves, without a marriage license, to be blessed - and when the Church will not marry you because it does not have the sanctioned license of the state - see starkly that the Church is not in fact serving Christ and God, but is compromised by its traditions into serving the state instead of God. Shake the dust off your sandals and "shack up" in the eyes of the compromised "Christian" church and the state, be truly married, by lifelong fidelity and childrearing, without ever having the "approval" of a Church that ought to bless the marriage without respecting any state licensing "requirement". THAT is where the fight should be fought. The Churches - every Christian Church - should stand up and refuse to demand a marriage license for marriage, perform the marriage, issue the Church certificate, and leave the matter of civil marriage to the state. If the state wants to remove the tax immunity, let it. Christianity build massive real estate edifices which, to maintain, requires tax deductions which, in turn, require the Church to comply with state dictates that violate the Law of God. When people come to Church for the blessing of their marriage, no minister should ever be asking for a marriage license. They all do, because "The law" requires them to. THAT is where the Christian Churches should be fighting - by universal defiance of the marriage licensing laws: marriage is by God between two individuals, and Christian Churches have no right to allow the state to impose a payment and a licensing requirement. Civil marriage licensing is a choice - to obtain tax benefits. The Churches should all stand right there - universal Christian disobedience, at the institutional levels, of all state laws. The Vatican should order that. The Churches will not, because they are hypocritical Christians, and follow their traditions, which tie them - fatally - to the secular states. That is why the Christians Church, writ large, is dying out. What will remain is a remnant. If Christians want to make a statement, they should "shack up" in the eyes of the church, without a license, if no priest or minister will marry them. The Christian churches should be forced, by Christians, to break the law - universally - in order to uphold the law of God. THAT is where the test should be falling, on the instutional churches themselves, not on some poor woman in Tennessee taking a hopeless stand against the government, being destroyed, losing her property, and not being reimbursed her losses by the Christian churches for which she took the hopeless stand. Organized Chrisitianity, standing up en masse as Churches, COULD break the strangehold of the seculars. But the Churches are compromised. They would lose money and property, and you cannot serve both God and money. So they serve money. Which is why Christians should shack up in the eyes of the law, and in the eyes of their churches, but be married in the eyes of God.
A man sat in a cell for 14 years for contempt. Another sat for 7. Without a trial, and without appeal. When in jail for contempt, you sit there until you submit to the judge's will and do exactly what he says. There is no trial. There is no trial clock. The judge has the authority to jail you, for life, without trial, and without process, until you comply with his order. He can also issue fines. And of course if you're sitting in jail and not working, your financial affairs go to ruin and you lose everything. That is not a taking. No individual is going to stand up to the federal judiciary and win on this battlefield.
Here in Washoe County, the county clerk's office handles just about all of the county's public records. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
Them Catholics are always screwing things up aren't they??? Thanks for your post. I read enough of it to have a better understanding of your Christianity and your thoughts. I have been wondering about these things.
No she isn't. Someone should beat your fag relatives until they change their mi mind. You belong in a mental institution. Stay off threads where you have to spout faggot propaganda. You're acting like a pedophile trying to tell kids it is ok to be a faggot. Just because some relative of yours is a fag.
Yes ... she is. She is NOT acting as a church representative. She is acting as an official of the state.
This woman will be crucified in two weeks. Count on it.
She could have made grievance to the county. BUTT NOOOOOO, she took the power of the state in her own hands acting as God's pre-eminent mouth piece.
Not really. Public officials have to swear an oath to obey the Constitution as well as the state and local laws. If anything,an elected official is under a bigger burden to obey the law than a mere employee. 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)
IMHO,this is one of the few things they did right. There was virtually no one else around that was literate and trustworthy enough to maintain marriage and birth records,and both helped to establish citizenship as well as settle inheritance claims. Thanks to the Catholic Church (and later the other ones) everybody understood who got what,and it probably saved a lot of lives. You can't have civilization without order,and marriage and birth certificates helped establish civilization. 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)
Really? I suppose you were there and copied the guest list? 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)
Probably not,but that doesn't mean she shouldn't be charged. 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)
These days it is safer and easier. 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)
One of us does. You ain't within email range of rational. BTW,I am sure it will please your Christian self to no end to know that my known homosexual relatives are now dead. 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)
I'm really looking forward to the day when one of your homosexual relatives runs up and sticks about a foot of wet tongue in your ear. My best bet is you would instantly drop a load. 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)
I think that might happen. LOL!
It's like eating at Friendlys. Always a happy ending. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
And Obama won't secure the borders, but no one's dragging him in front of a court threatening contempt.
Just wait until Commie Sanders gets his chance to flush the Mexican toilet on this country. "AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS WILL: Sign comprehensive immigration reform into law to bring over 11 million undocumented workers out of the shadows. We cannot continue to run an economy where millions are made so vulnerable because of their undocumented status." ^^^ off Commie Sanders web site. This is the fuck face that Hondo, Fred and Buckey are voting for. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
You may not have noticed,but there is a bit of difference between a county clerk and the President of the United States. 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)
Well, the Caesar is this case are the people who elected her and gave her powers to act. Pilate did not have power on his own, but he could have refuse to execute Christ, even if he would be reported and possibly prosecuted.
Sign comprehensive immigration reform into law to bring over 11 million undocumented workers out of the shadows. There fixed it for you. Amnesty is not going to be stopped - the Republicans are just as much on board with it as the democrats. In a Cop Culture, the Bill of Rights Doesn’t Amount to Much You didn't fix nothing... that quote was posted by commie sanders on his own Facebook page. lol It's as true and accurate as it gets. You need not worry about the long list of RINO's you listed, IF YOU GET BEHIND TRUMP... or you can boycott voting another year and bitch bitch bitch next year about who's signing executive orders. And Deckard, you bitch the most of anyone here... and you do the least. Cast a vote, you slob. If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
self ping
Si vis pacem, para bellum
I guess it depends on how you understand criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C., Crimes and Criminal Procedure. http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-18/part-i/chapter-21/section-401/ §401. Power of court A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as— (1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice; (2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions; (3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701; Pub. L. 107–273, div. B, title III, §3002(a)(1), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1805.) http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-18/part-ii/chapter-233/section-3691/ §3691. Jury trial of criminal contempts Whenever a contempt charged shall consist in willful disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States by doing or omitting any act or thing in violation thereof, and the act or thing done or omitted also constitutes a criminal offense under any Act of Congress, or under the laws of any state in which it was done or omitted, the accused, upon demand therefor, shall be entitled to trial by a jury, which shall conform as near as may be to the practice in other criminal cases. This section shall not apply to contempts committed in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, nor to contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 844.) http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-18/part-ii/chapter-233/section-3693/ §3693. Summary disposition or jury trial; notice—(Rule) See Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Summary punishment; certificate of judge; order; notice; jury trial; bail; disqualification of judge, Rule 42. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 844.) https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_42 SUPPLEMENTARY AND SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS Rule 42. Criminal Contempt (a) Disposition After Notice. Any person who commits criminal contempt may be punished for that contempt after prosecution on notice. (1) Notice. The court must give the person notice in open court, in an order to show cause, or in an arrest order. The notice must: (A) state the time and place of the trial; (B) allow the defendant a reasonable time to prepare a defense; and (C) state the essential facts constituting the charged criminal contempt and describe it as such. (2) Appointing a Prosecutor. The court must request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government, unless the interest of justice requires the appointment of another attorney. If the government declines the request, the court must appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt. (3) Trial and Disposition. A person being prosecuted for criminal contempt is entitled to a jury trial in any case in which federal law so provides and must be released or detained as Rule 46 provides. If the criminal contempt involves disrespect toward or criticism of a judge, that judge is disqualified from presiding at the contempt trial or hearing unless the defendant consents. Upon a finding or verdict of guilty, the court must impose the punishment. (b) Summary Disposition. Notwithstanding any other provision of these rules, the court (other than a magistrate judge) may summarily punish a person who commits criminal contempt in its presence if the judge saw or heard the contemptuous conduct and so certifies; a magistrate judge may summarily punish a person as provided in 28 U.S.C. §636(e). The contempt order must recite the facts, be signed by the judge, and be filed with the clerk. Notes (As amended Mar. 9, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Apr. 29, 2002, eff. Dec. 1, 2002.)
Pilate had the power delegated to him by the Emperor and he could use it at will and at his discretion. And Pilate knew quite well what was powers were delegated to him and what was not. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
My belief system is very simple: God gave a Law, which Jesus upheld until the end of the world. The Law is not complicated. It amounts to: Don't be violent, don't oppress, be faithfully married and have children, tell the truth, don't steal, lend your excess money and do not charge interest, love God, and that God will forgive your sins if you forgive other people. All of human misery derives from breaking those simple rules.
Pilate had the power delegated to him by the Emperor and he could use it at will and at his discretion. And Pilate knew quite well what was powers were delegated to him and what was not. And from there on Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If you let this man go, you are not Caesar's friend: whosoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar. [...] And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he said unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate said unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then he delivered him therefore unto them to be crucified. [...] And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was near to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. Pilate answered, What I have written I have written
www.nytimes.com/2015/09/0...me-sex-marriage.html?_r=0 Breaking news...
www.nytimes.com/2015/09/0...me-sex-marriage.html?_r=0 Uh thats called politics! Ask the klintons!
There was never any doubt that she would issue licenses, resign, or go to jail.
How long will she spend in the Rowan County Hilton?
That's up to her.
How much do they charge a night? From what I hear it is something like 20 or 30 bucks. Will she still be on the payroll? Just some down home financial interests in my mind. I'm sure she could do some sort of gofundme endeavor and become a millionaire with all the funding from the fundies. Hey, I made a dilly.
Actually she should be fired. She should never see jail because they should fire her instead. Its evil of government to jail someone in a case like this. What they are saying is you either bend to our ways or be punished. It bothers me that we[government] give gay people special rights just because they are gay.
I am in total agreement with that. It bothers me that we[government] give gay people special rights just because they are gay. Same here. We need some elected officials with the stones to point out that "Special Rights" and "EQUAL Rights" are NOT the same thing,and than in America the LAW says we ALL have to be treated EQUALLY. Which means no racial quotes,no affirmative action,no government set-asides,etc,etc,etc. Anybody that doesn't like it is free to get the hell out of the country. 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)
Comments (78 - 339) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestA county clerk in Kentucky has again refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, invoking her religious beliefs and "God's authority"
#38. To: Pinguinite (#33)
(Edited)
She could be re-elected even from jail. And if her stand is popular with the county, impeachment might not be a viable political option. And even in jail, she still has authority to run her office, and can still refuse to issue licenses.
#39. To: Pinguinite (#35)
The only thing she'd be jailed for is contempt.
#40. To: redleghunter (#1)
If I remember correctly, county clerks do more than issue marriage licenses.
#41. To: Vicomte13, Liberator (#38)
America has called itself a Christian nation, but that was an insult to Christ. It has NEVER been a Christian nation, at any point in its existence. It was a Gentile nation that, for most of its history, was populated by Christian hypocrites who trammeled on the most basic of God's laws in open, violent and horrific ways. Indeed, the nation itself was ACQUIRED by crimes against humanity and against God.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#42. To: Vicomte13 (#38)
#43. To: sneakypete (#22)
Of course she is.
#44. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#43)
No she isn't.
#45. To: A K A Stone (#43)
#46. To: Fred Mertz (#45)
#47. To: Fred Mertz (#23)
She is an elected official, so that may complicate things.
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
There is nothing wrong with the tradition, as such, but it became the earlier form of the marriage license back in earlier times. There were no states back then with staff to do this. But the Church handled family law, and charged fees, and ran the marriage courts.
#49. To: redleghunter (#31)
The Son of God was present at the first marriage.
#50. To: Pinguinite (#34)
#51. To: Pinguinite (#35)
She is not in any danger of prosecution.
#52. To: Pinguinite (#36)
Yes they get paid, but removing an employee from service is absolutely not the same thing as removing an elected official.
#53. To: A K A Stone (#43)
(Edited)
No she isn't. Someone should beat your fag relatives until they change their mi mind. You belong in a mental institution.
#54. To: A K A Stone (#43)
You're acting like a pedophile trying to tell kids it is ok to be a faggot. Just because some relative of yours is a fag.
#55. To: sneakypete (#54)
#56. To: buckeroo (#44)
(Edited)
#57. To: sneakypete (#53)
BTW,I am sure it will please your Christian self to no end to know that my known homosexual relatives are now dead.
#58. To: sneakypete (#50)
Not that it really changes the basic claim that she is refusing to do her duty as a public official.
#59. To: Pinguinite (#58)
(Edited)
And Obama won't secure the borders, but no one's dragging him in front of a court threatening contempt.
#60. To: Pinguinite (#58)
And Obama won't secure the borders, but no one's dragging him in front of a court threatening contempt.
#61. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
She is an agent of the state. She serves Caesar and takes Caesar's coin. Therefore, she must obey C. If he conscience does not allow her to serve Caesar because of what Caesar demands of her, then she must stop taking Caesar's coin. She must resign her post and leave it.
#62. To: GrandIsland (#59)
"AS PRESIDENT, SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Walker, Cruz, ad nauseum WILL:
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#63. To: Deckard (#62)
There fixed it for you.
#64. To: stoner (#0)
#65. To: Pinguinite, sneakypete (#35)
The only thing she'd be jailed for is contempt. She is not in any danger of prosecution. No crimes are involved with contempt, as I understand the terms.
CONTEMPTS - 18 U.S.C. § 401 (2012)
CONTEMPTS - 18 U.S.C. § 3691 (2012)
CONTEMPTS - 18 U.S.C. § 3693 (2012)
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure › TITLE VIII.
#66. To: A Pole, Vicomte13 (#61)
Pilate did not have power on his own, but he could have refuse to execute Christ, even if he would be reported and possibly prosecuted.
#67. To: Don (#42)
Thanks for your post. I read enough of it to have a better understanding of your Christianity and your thoughts. I have been wondering about these things.
#68. To: SOSO (#66)
(Edited)
"Pilate did not have power on his own, but he could have refuse to execute Christ, even if he would be reported and possibly prosecuted."
#69. To: sneakypete, All LFers (#47)
“The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order,” Judge Bunning said. “If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.”
#70. To: Fred Mertz, sneakypete, All (#69)
“The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order,” Judge Bunning said. “If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.”
#71. To: Fred Mertz (#69)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0
#72. To: nolu chan (#71)
#73. To: Fred Mertz (#72)
How long will she spend in the Rowan County Hilton?
#74. To: nolu chan (#73)
#75. To: nolu chan (#71)
#76. To: sneakypete, nolu chan (#75)
There was never any doubt that she would issue licenses, resign, or go to jail.
#77. To: Justified (#76)
Actually she should be fired. She should never see jail because they should fire her instead. Its evil of government to jail someone in a case like this. What they are saying is you either bend to our ways or be punished.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]