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: 28507
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
#1. To: cranky, *Religious History and Issues* (#0)
Wonder if these same activists know that doctors cannot be forced into giving sex change operations or even performing abortions and prescribing birth control pills. If I remember correctly, county clerks do more than issue marriage licenses. I also know this gay couple could go to another county and get a license. So why push someone to do something against their convictions? "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
So why push someone to do something against their convictions? They are doing it on principle, and they will certainly win too. The woman is a public official America is a secular, pagan state, with secular pagan laws, one of which is the legality of slaughtering babies in the womb, and another of which is the constitutional requirement to treat gay couples the same as any normal couple when it comes to marriage. She is an agent of the state. She serves Caesar and takes Caesar's coin. Therefore, she must obey Caesar. 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. Before the issue was litigated before the Supreme Court, it was an open question, but now Caesar has spoken, very clearly. You cannot serve both God and Caesar on the matter of gay marriage. If you try to, you are breaking the laws of Caesar, and you will be punished by Caesar. Of course, Christians do not need to get married by the state at all to be married in the eyes of God. The state's license and sanction mean nothing, at all, in the court of God. Did a man and a woman consecrate themselves to the other before God, consummate the union, and keep to each other having no others? Then they are married. The state has all sorts of contracts and the laws that govern the relationship in its pagan ways, but Christians are not required by God to go through any licensing or formal ceremony to be married. You cannot serve both God and money, and you cannot serve both God and the American government either. There was a time when you could, sort of, but that time has passed. You cannot do so anymore, in the capacity of clerk. The proper answer is for her, and everybody else, to understand that state- sanctioned marriage is not marriage. Marriage is a spiritual union before God, a covenant that God consecrates. The state was permitted to come to that table, but the state has attempted to take over that table. In fact, neither the state NOR the Church is required to consecrate a covenant of marriage before God. All that is required is God and the two individuals who are marrying, and their following God's law of marriage. There is no marriage license requirement in God's law, and there is no requirement of a minister or a church service either. To the extent that the laws of men - both governmental and church - have become so oppressive as to try to cancel out the spiritual essence of marriage, those who follow God need to stop submitting to the laws of men - whether governmental OR ECCLESIAL - and marry before God. No witnesses are required either: that is a Christian and Jewish tradition only, not a commandment. That's the truth. Christians used to control American government. Trouble is, the Christians behaved very evilly - engaging in slavery, and in warfare, and in oppressive economic practices, all in violation of God's law. The Hypocritical Christian was (and is) the American standard, and hypocrisy utterly discredits the organized faith in the eyes of everybody. Those OUTSIDE the faith treat it as the joke that it IS, when it is hypocritical. And those WITHIN the faith make a public display but do as they please in public. Speak for Christ, actually QUOTE the law, chapter and verse, and Hypocritical Christians will scream at you. They will not be silent, repent and follow God. And so the Christian edifice rotted and lost power. Now, there is grasping at straws, trying to straddle an absurdity. Here's the truth: if a man and a woman who are virgins consecrate themselves to each other before God, in private, with nobody else present, and consummate the marriage sexually, and keep God's law, THEY ARE MARRIED. The Church says they are not, but God never ever gave the Church any authority to determine what a marriage is: THAT is established by God's law, not by human tradition. And the STATE has NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT. The proper thing for Christians to do today is to "shack up", in the eyes of the law and in the eyes of their churches, for life. No Church will marry people without a marriage license, but what the state gives is not a license to marry, for the state has no power to limit real marriage. Christians should ignore the state completely and get no marriage licenses. And that means that their Churches will not marry them, which is fine, because the Church marriage is nothing but a party and a ceremony. Christians should shack up for life and be faithful, wear rings and call themselves married, because THEY ARE. Play the game of licenses and churches, and you submit to Satan. And given this, the woman can keep her job, give out these fake licenses to anybody, but must herself hew to what "marriage" actually is - and it requires neither license nor ceremony. If she wants to immolate herself as a martyr, she can. The problem is that she is martyring herself for the principle that what the state offers is "marriage", and it is not. The state has no power to offer marriage. Marriage is a covenant between three: two people and God. Nobody else's permission is required, and nobody has to be present, or told about it, for it to exist.
No, she is a public official in our republic, sworn to uphold the Constitution as written. That fascistic idea was rejected at Nuremburg. OR, -- she has the option, and freedom, to fight for her convictions. It's the American way...
She is not an employee of the state. She is an elected official which to me is key. She is responsible for duties on the authority derived directly from the people of her voting district (county) and it seems to me that any judge that would jail her would violate the separation of powers, undermining the will of the majority of county voters. The county voters are her "Ceasar", not any judge. She is committing no crime. If the county voters think she is doing poorly, they can vote her out of office in the next election. That's the "remedy", if one is needed.
She can indeed. And she is currently. And she will be haled into court and fined or jailed from contempt, suspended from her job and ultimately released for it. American law allows no conscience exception to laws of general applicability. American Indians did indeed use peyote in their sacred rituals, but the Supreme Court ruled that federal drug laws supersede their religious practices, and they were prosecuted for using it. I think it was Clinton who pressed for the law change to let them, or perhaps just directed that the AG was not to permit the Justice Department to prosecute such cases. Same thing here. The Republic has moved. The court has spoken. This official has chosen to disobey the law. Now she will be punished until she yields or is removed. Christian religious scruples are not going to be allowed to stand against the applicability of a law to a public official. She can take her stand and many will cheer her on. And in an ultimate moral sense she is right that gay marriage is not marriage. But marriage licenses are not about ultimate moral sense. They are confections of the state, sold by the state. What the license grants, is the contractual right for the licensees to get survivor benefits from public programs. From a governmental perspective, that it what marriage means: a spouse dies, the other spouse gets Social Security survivors benefits.
In America, the courts are the final arbiters of disputes. The Courts have spoken, and the Supreme Court has declined a hearing. Therefore, she is acting illegally under American law, and she will be prosecuted and fined for her illegal behavior. Christians can - and probably will - fight a rearguard retreat on this matter, but they will lose. Theologically, the proper answer is for Christians to shake off their addiction to the pagan state and secular power, and to ecclesial power as a secondary means to secular power. The days in which government is controlled by active Christians has passed, and the country is not willing to be governed by Christian sexual norms any more. The unwillingness to accept that fact will cause Christians to exhaust themselves in hopeless political efforts. The proper answer is to clean house and go directly to the God-revealed principles, and not fight over power regarding the rest. For power has little purchase against the actual principle. Actual marriage is between two people and God. There is no need for the state or for a church ceremony to make a real marriage. Whether the state recognizes the marriage or not is a separate matter whose only relevance relates to obtaining entitlement money from the state. To get your partner's Social Security entitlement money from the government after you croak, you have to buy the state's "marriage license". The state only recognizes marriages for which the marriage licensing tax has been paid. You also have to pay the marriage licensing tax to get the benefit of the state's tax laws. It may be worth it for Christians to pay the franchise tax in order to get the tax and survivor benefits, but that's simply a matter of buying insurance - regardless what the state calls it. The state may call it "marriage", but the only thing that really IS marriage is what God defines as marriage. The two definitions used to largely overlap. Now they don't. And they won't in the foreseeable future. Her is a hopeless stand and she will be destroyed by the law. There is no prospect of victory for her on that front.
We rejected such fascistic reasoning at Nuremburg.. Well put, and absolutely true. She could be 'impeached', I'd guess, but that would raise questions on the constitutionality of an impeachment over religious beliefs, that I doubt the courts would want to face.
In America, the courts are the final arbiters of disputes. The Courts have spoken, and the Supreme Court has declined a hearing. Therefore, she is acting illegally under American law, and she will be prosecuted and fined for her illegal behavior. Interesting concept --- , that we can prosecute an elected official for refusing to obey an (un)constitutional order. I'd bet that it can't and won't be done..
I agree. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
She could be 'impeached', I'd guess, but that would raise questions on the constitutionality of an impeachment over religious beliefs, that I doubt the courts would want to face. She will not be impeached. She has violated a court order, and the regular police will enforce the bench warrants that result. She will be commanded to appear in court, and she will appear. If she does not, she will be hauled in by the local marshals. Once in court, the judge will enquire as to the circumstances of her disobedience of his orders. He will assign punishment, including at least a fine and possibly jailing, for her contempt of court. The sentence will be carried out by the sheriffs levying her property if she does not pay it voluntarily, or by the bailiffs remanding her to the jail. If she continues to defy the orders, she will spend more time in jail. Ultimately either her term will expire or she will be removed by the legislative or executive action of some higher authority in her state. And that will be that. The next occupant of the office will issue the licenses. The disobedient agent will suffer the loss of money, job and, if jailed, time, and will lose. She will comply or be punished and removed. She will not remain in office and successfully resist a decision of the judicial system.
I'd bet that it can't and won't be done.. A steak dinner, here, now. This woman will comply, or she will be punished and ultimately removed from office.
Interesting concept --- , that we can prosecute an elected official for refusing to obey an (un)constitutional order. I'd bet that it can't and won't be done.. And if the local authorities refuse? -- You do realize they have that same power, to refuse to obey constitutionally debatable 'orders'? Do you really think the feds will send in forces? -- Nope, it ain't gonna happen.
Interesting concept --- , that we can prosecute an elected official for refusing to obey an (un)constitutional order. I'd bet that it can't and won't be done.. You're on -- Where's 'here' for you? I'll buy at Sweet Lorraines, in Quincy Ca.
Here's what will happen: She has been called to federal court. She will go. If she does not, the court will find her in contempt and the judge will issue orders to take her into custody, which the Federal Marshals will most certainly carry out. If she shows up, the judge will ask her to present evidence as to why he should not hold her in contempt. She will plead her religious exception. The (Republican) Supreme Court having already refused to hear the case (and note well, there are five Republicans on the Court, so if the Republicans wanted to protect this woman, they not only have the power to hear the case but to decide it in her favor - instead they refused to hear it). their refusal will be cited by the judge as having decided the religious exception issue - and the judge will proceed to find her in contempt. The judge will order her to perform again, and he may order her jailed for contempt. Periodically he will summon her to see if she is ready to relent and obey the court. If she agrees to and is sent back to the office, and refuses to do as she said, she will go back into jail for contempt. As long as she refuses, she will remain in jail for contempt. In lieu of jail, the judge may also order fines against her, to cripple her financially as well as take her liberty. She may serve out her term and be bankrupted for contempt, or the judge may order to state to act under its statutes to place a provisional official in charge of issuing licenses. She will not successfully resist the will of a federal court who has already gotten the nod from the Supreme Court that this woman has no case.
If I'm in California and win, you'll buy for me there. If you win, I'll buy for you there. You or I will buy at 323 in Westport, CT, unless you - being in CT and all - would prefer the local Northeastern seafood (oysters, clams, lobster), in which case we'll get it and eat it down at the beach pavilion. So, when are you getting out to Connecticut/NYC to buy me my seafood dinner?
The current regime will call for her head and the Pubbies will stand by and watch it all happen, quietly.
When hell freezes over and your authoritarian dream comes true. --- IF, big if, she is cited for contempt, she will never pay a fine, or serve a day. One way or another, this hot potato constitutional issue will be dropped by the Court system.
One way or another, this hot potato constitutional issue will be dropped by the Court system. They will never drop it. A petty official has stood against the political tide, the social tide AND the federal judiciary. The Supreme Court brushed off the case, and a local official has publicly, before the nation, defied a Federal justice. The system will close in on her like white blood cells on an infection, and she will be made a national example of how individual Christian conscience in petty officials WILL bow down before the law in America, of how local officials SHALL obey federal officials with jurisdiction. This will not be a close case, and the Federal judiciary will most certainly assert its power with her bloody hide.
Pedophile propaganda deleted.
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 also know this gay couple could go to another county and get a license. Or if this PUBLIC SERVANT is all that concerned with violating her religious beliefs,she could step aside and let one of the other clerks issue the license. She didn't want to do that because she wanted to become a martyr and a public figure. 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)
Pedophile propaganda deleted.
Lies and pedophile propaganda deleted.
She is an elected official, so that may complicate things.
Lies and Obama pedophile propaganda deleted.
Elected officials are state employees. 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)
Lies and pedophile propaganda deleted.
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)
Deleted contained lies and pedophile propaganda.
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)
Don't get me wrong - I appreciate her willingness to take a stand. But it's sort of like the folks taking a stand against illegal aliens by trying to ignore the 14th Amendment: you have to choose your weapon carefully pick the ground on which you decide to fight. Taking a knife to a gunfight, or choosing to fight with a flamethrower in a barn full of dry straw is below-average headwork. The right answer to all of it is for Christians to return to a correct definition and understanding of marriage as God made it, which requires neither state OR church to make it real, and which cannot be dissolved at all. And what "enforces" marriage? God. Break your marriage vows and you are an adulterer. Die unrepentant, and you are thrown into the flames at judgment. No chance to cheat - and place for human law to surveil or gain purchase. So, what is all of this business of marriage "licensing"? You are purchasing, for a modest fee, a permanent reduced tax status. And you're purchasing the entitlement to your co-contractant's Social Security survivor benefits. You're purchasing the right to certain forms of confidential access, and a specific legal privilege that makes what you say to each other immune from questioning in court. The state affords certain major benefits to those who purchase this license. But it has nothing to do with God. If the state wants to accord that to gays, or bestials, or whomever, that is their business. It is not "marriage", in the divine sense, no matter what the state calls it. And as far as the Church marriage goes - there is no such thing required by God. It is a tradition that arose among men. 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. So, the usurping nature of the state in matters of marriage is merely the latter, secular-day evolution of the earlier usurpation of the Church in the same matter, for it was the Church that converted the religious celebration OF a marriage into an obligatory, fee-paid rite to CREATE a marriage. Christians have to shed the baggage of the secular state AND their own rotten religious tradition which pretends, without any authority from God, to make the Church the CREATOR of marriage. Neither the Church NOR the state are required, in any capacity, to form a true marriage. That is formed, in the only form that exists, between one man, one woman, and God. It is a three-way covenant, and there is no role for the clergy in it. It is a custom to include the clergy - a custom which became mandatory when the church became the state. That move was always illegitimate, and today we're bearing the bad fruit of it. Now, to this woman, and to many many Christians, she is suffering martyrdom for refusing to back down on a matter of religious principle. However, Christians need to understand that the principle on which this sacrifice is being made is merely the principle that an old Christian tradition - which is not commanded by God - is being supplanted by a new secular state tradition. No assault is being made on actual marriage itself, which can only be formed between a man, woman and God, and in the creation of which neither Church nor State have any role whatever, for God never gave one single role to any priest of Israel or Apostle of the Church to the creation of marriage. The only role Jesus himself performed at a marriage was to be a guest who performed a miracle there, with wine. Leviticus describes how to gut and skin and burn animal parts for myriad rituals, but there is no ritual of marriage in the Torah. Jewish marriage, also, is an entirely human tradition with no Scriptural basis. That's the truth. If Christians grasp the nettle of the truth, their faith will be purer, and the foolish, mad gyrations of secular society and church politics on the issue will be clearly seen to be as irrelevant and spiritually inconsequential as they in fact are. But that's hard learning. It's easier to just be pissed, on both sides, because one's tradition isn't being respected.
Marriage existed long before the birth of Christ. The Son of God was present at the first marriage. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
It's not prosecution. It's being held in contempt. Legally a very different thing.
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. 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.
If I understand correctly, she is refusing to issue all marriage licenses, not just gay ones, so equal treatment is not an issue. If I understand the issues correctly.
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.
Yes they get paid, but removing an employee from service is absolutely not the same thing as removing an elected official.
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)
WOW. I thought we would have at least squabbled about something! LOL
Why? Is it because you believe all that nonsense spouted by A K A Stone that I am pro-homosexual because I insist on ALL Americans being treated equally by the government? 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)
Is it because you believe all that nonsense spouted by A K A Stone that I am pro-homosexual because I insist on ALL Americans being treated equally by the government? No Because we have had a difference of opinion on marriage. I think marriage is between a man and a woman. You think we should not discriminate and let gay people be miserable too! LOL You made me think about it more in depth from our previous discussions. I have concluded that marriage is a special right. I actually have no problem with that in that it suppose to protect people who bring forth and raise children to make America stronger. But like everything federal government gets a hold of they turn it on its head and make it useless.
I think so. They can't fire here, she's elected. My impression is she has the support of the state and local government. If they had a sense of urgency, they could act to remove her from office. She refused an agreement to be released if she would authorize subordinates to issue the licenses. It's the same moral question. I admire her standing up for her beliefs, but have no illusion that the Federal government will just give up.
She can't be fired. She was never hired, she was elected. It does not appear to me that the in-state authorities are in any hurry to remove her from office. It seems issuing gay marriage licenses is not high on their to-do list. It is contempt of court. I believe it is also her good faith religious beliefs preventing her compliance.
Yes. She should be fired, by the people or be removed from office by local government but not jailed. That way people can go after those who do not do the peoples will in that locality. It always seems that the progressives always get their way laws be damned. If we don't start pushing back we will get pushed right into the ocean. In my opinion she should be low man on the list of priorities. When they get done with Hillary Klinton then I say let them worry about her. ;) It is contempt of court. I believe it is also her good faith religious beliefs preventing her compliance. Yes its the heavy hand of government.
The death of a wedge issue is never good for the ruling class.
Well put, and absolutely true. I saw this reply on another site. What is her crime? :----
Very good point
Most likely. And many I am sure will rejoice. After all, she violated The Law, and she ignored a FEDERAL JUDGE. She is lucky she did not get the firing squad. Okaaaay. If we are going to have this situation, I say we go after the President & Congress for the laws they violate or ignore; all the bureaucrats that ignore or violate laws; all of the city officials that operate "sanctuary cities", all the people at Planned Parenthood that sell baby parts, and a lot of other "law breakers". Yes, lets apply the law evenly, and with the same amount of enthusiasm. If any here want to ignore the ones I mentioned, while crucifying this lady, I look forward to hearing who, and the rationale. ;) Si vis pacem, para bellum
Very good point A point that her attorneys should be raising with higher courts. It's counterintuitive to our basic principles that when a constitutional issue is being raised, that a judge can jail the opposition for contempt..
Ping to # 87 Sorry, I inadvertently failed to ping you Regards, Stoner Si vis pacem, para bellum
If any here want to ignore the ones I mentioned, while crucifying this lady, I look forward to hearing who, and the rationale. ;) No problem on the ping, -- that's why I use (Y'ALL) all the time.. And dont hold your breath waiting for 'rationale' from the crusifiers on this forum.
Oh, I'm not. In fact, I am going to have a couple shots of Ky Bourbon and go to bed. Been cutting firewood about all day. I will check in next AM and see what the circus is up to. Have a good evening! Si vis pacem, para bellum
Thanks to you, DCW, and a fine merlot, I will.. It's good to see that there are still a few of us around here that give a damn about basic constitutional principles.
It's counterintuitive to our basic principles that when a constitutional issue is being raised, that a judge can jail the opposition for contempt.. The did. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Contempt of court. The court has equitable powers. It has used them on her. Now the end-game will be: the clerks issue the licenses, and she stays in jail until she either (a) agrees not to interfere with them or (b) resigns.
And your point is what? That Pilate had the power to decide Jesus' fate? We all know that.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I admire her standing up for her beliefs, but have no illusion that the Federal government will just give up. They need to attack on multiple fronts. This is a clear violation of the constitutions religions test clause. They are forcing a religious test on her which is unconstitutional. The religious test of today is to make you disavow your religion. Still a religious test though.
Yes you are sneaky. You're also a hypocrite. You want special rights for fags because you have lots and lots in your family. You like all commies support the equal rights amendment. You're a foolish old man.
I am unaware of any federal law in regards to marriage licenses since DOMA was struck down by SCOTUS. Perhaps you can also explain what law SCOTUS has enacted in regards to marriage licenses that is being defied. I was unaware that SCOTUS could enact Federal or State legislation as I understand that it is not part of their Constitutional authority. A point that her attorneys should be raising with higher courts. It's counterintuitive to our basic principles that when a constitutional issue is being raised, that a judge can jail the opposition for contempt.. We know that. Why do you support that arguably cowardly act? And, why do you support the alleged power of a judge to jail opponents for 'civil contempt' -- without a trial?
Stoner, I said that because I watch what is happening in this country. The woman made a principled stand and was squashed like a bug. Whether I agree with her stand or not is immaterial. I predicted the obvious.
I knew that all along, Pebbles. See, I can post bogus quotes too.
Where would all the Commie Sanders agenda posters be, without you defending them? You are a hero. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
And you're one of the biggest jagoffs on this web site.
Sorry, here's the link - see bottom of page.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
This was inevitable... there is always someone willing to shit on you, for personal gain. Silly faggots, dicks are for chicks. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
AKA -- " I am pro-homosexual" --- Yes you are sneaky. You're also a hypocrite. ---- You want special rights for fags because you have lots and lots in your family. --- You like all commies support the equal rights amendment. You're a foolish old man. The only thing true is the last comment. -- I too am a foolish old man, -- and it's getting real tiresome to see you misquote and mischaracterize old Pete. Get some new lines, preferably ones with a bit of veracity.
The opinion of a Commie Sanders supporter is no real dig at me. I expect you to be lost, weak and hate the stronger person.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Don't call him old pete, he might bite your head off. Other than that, well said.
Come on, let's be honest, Pete's so old he probably donates blood every time he pees. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Speak for yourself.
I'm older than he, so I have special dispensation regarding these matters of foolishness. Hell, I may be the oldest fool here, since gatlin left..
Support it? I think the whole circus is irrelevant. Truth is, marriage is defined by God as being between a man and a woman deciding to couple for life, and then having sex. No minister, No license. No state OR church involvement. A marriage is created when a man and a woman decide their married and have sex. That's a marriage before God. God holds them to it: if they divorce and have sex with others, they are adulterers, and God throws them into hell at final judgment. So, marriage is perilous stuff. But the state ande the Churches have nothing to do with it. BECAUSE the Churches usurped power in this area millennua ago, the state then had purchase for its bogus "license".. The proper way out of all of this nonsense is for Christians to knock off the charade of needing either a marriage license OR a church ceremony. The clergy won't marry anybody without the state's license, because that's "against the law" and they don't want to lose their tax exempt status. All a bunch of moral compromise over a non-existent requirement. Christians need to simply avoid all of that, shack up for life, be married and act that way, and that is that. Let the gays go get the piece of paper.
No Because we have had a difference of opinion on marriage. I think marriage is between a man and a woman. You think we should not discriminate and let gay people be miserable too! LOL The reality is we all have our biases,but our personal opinions are of no real importance to anyone but ourselves. What is important is the answer to the the questions "Is it Constitutional? Does it violate the Bill of Rights?" 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)
It's counterintuitive to our basic principles that when a constitutional issue is being raised, that a judge can jail the opposition for contempt.. We know that. Why do you support that arguably cowardly act? And, why do you support the alleged power of a judge to jail opponents for 'civil contempt' -- without a trial ? Then why did you answer in support of the Supremes? You're not being truthful, old boy.. Why is that ?
Very true. It's the old "divide and conquer" principle put into motion. Too much of that "reasoning stuff" starts going on,and pretty soon we would all be looking at what the gubbermint does to us and focus on that more than what we do to each other. The professional pols and their paymasters just couldn't stand that kind of heat. 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)
Most likely. And many I am sure will rejoice. After all, she violated The Law, and she ignored a FEDERAL JUDGE. She is lucky she did not get the firing squad. Screw the feral judge,as well as the horse he rode in on. This,like marriage itself,is a STATE issue,not a federal issue. It would be a federal issue if the state legislature or Governor decided to bar marriage between homosexuals,but this is just a case of a state employee violating her oath of office because any homosexuals who were refused a marriage license by her were free to go to the next town and get one. I have no idea of violating your oath of office is a crime that rates jail time in that state or not,but I think it is irrelevant because I suspect the state is going to satisfy itself to drop that hot potato by just removing her from office and maybe giving her some sort of suspended sentence. 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)
The feds sent in US Marshals to throw her in the klink. So, I think you're wrong here.
The feral government getting involved in a case that is a states rights issue like marriage is Un-Constitional itself. Yes,violating the rights of homosexuals is a federal issue,but IMHO ONLY if the state legislature or the Governor is the one behind it,making it an approved act of the state. One employee out of who knows how many hundreds is no legitimate concern of the feral government. 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)
You're also a hypocrite. You are delusional. You want special rights for fags because you have lots and lots in your family. You like all commies support the equal rights amendment. You're a foolish old man. As well as being a liar. 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 out of curiouslty,what do you usually pay for that service? 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)
The clergy can conduct a marriage ceremony for anyone. However, when they do so without a state license being issued to the couple that ceremony has no weight with the state. Just as some states recognize a marriage without any solemnozation ceremony. "{A} marriage may be solemnized by a judge of a court, a retired judge, a court magistrate, a public official whose powers include solemnization of marriages, a Native-American tribe official, clergy, or you and your intended spouse. Clergy from out-of-state do not need to be registered in Colorado". Of course, the church will not recognize a state licensed and a state or self performed marriage ceremony as a marriage within its faith. Either way, from the state's point of view a church ceremony is vitually meaningless. Those that get their panties in a bunch over gay marriage should understand this. The only significance of a church performed ceremony is to those within the church community. A church perfomed ceremony adds nothing to the civil issued license and recognition of the marriage. ALL state recognized marriages are civil unions, nothing more, nothing less. The state does not recognize any religious, spiritual or sacramental aspects of a church marriage ceremony - all marriages are equal. The church should get out of the business of marriage and into to the business of holy union (preferably with the issue of a state license for the civil union of marriage to assure state recognition of the marriage of the couple). The church then will have no problem in dealing with a state sanctioned civil unions. And no-one can force the church to perform/sanction holy unions to non- members of the church or those that are not members in good standing with the church. It is of no business of the state if a church wishes to grant holy union status to a gay couple or not, polygamists or not, brother and sister, brother and brother, sister and sister, mother and son, etc. "Christians need to simply avoid all of that, shack up for life, be married and act that way, and that is that." Not likely as most states impose/recognize common law marriage. So in the end it still becomes a civil union. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
So, I think you're wrong here. Hell,they sent snipers and a freaking tank in at Waco,Texas. That doesn't mean it was the right,or even the legal thing to do. 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 am always truthful. It's just that I really place very little stock in the Constitution, or the law, or the concept of the Rule of Law. Those are just totems and tokens. I am interested in The Law, the REAL law, the one we're all answerable too. Obviously that Law inevitably comes to play through the medium of our laws and courts and all of that, but I don't have a whole lot of patience for the actual inside baseball of our system. I know the rules of our legal system. I know it's a game. I get paid well for playing that game, but I don't believe that the game has virtue. I think it's a rigged casino from the get go, and always was. So, am I SUPPORTING the Supremes? No. I'm just saying what they are going to do, and why, the logic of it, how the game will grind out in its inevitable way. MY view? Christians should stop playing the legal marriage and church marriage game, neither of which are required by or really have anything to do with God's law. Instead, by the hundred milllion strong, Christians should marry, for good, by shacking up for life and saying their are married - because they are. No ceremony, no papers. And then when somebody tries to block them from something, sue. Christian marriage is partnership for life - the approval or licensing from some state entity, for a fee, is irrelevant to marriage, and the whole requirement should be ignored by all Christians. Since the Churches are all morally compromised and have created the false tradition that a church wedding is required, they won't marry without the state's license. Which means that church wedding traditions also need to go: they are false from the get go. A very salutary thing comes from this. By being true to the actual LAW of God, and ceasing to fight over mere traditions, Christians can find themselves much freer than they thought, and in that freedom, find great strength.
Less than you pay for adult diapers. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Common Law marriage is perfect, because the Christian couple doesn't have to DO anything to "get" it. It's just a status that is recognized at a certain point. So, the Christians are true to God's law, and they stop playing the game of paying for a license from the state to do what any couple can do by pleding each other's troth and having sex before God. Nothing more. The Churches, having compromised themselves now should be forced by Christians to either perform weddings without the licenses, or Christians should simply disregard the Churches on the matter. If the Churches want to weaken themselves by becoming lapdog enforces of a state taxing and regulation scheme, Christians should exercise their liberty in God to marry God's way, and ignore the made-up traditions of men. The individuals, of course, should ALWAYS assert their marriage, as a matter of fact, without comment. They ARE married. That the state gets around to admitting that through Common Law is fine, but that's the state's business.
Who in hell in the executive branch authorized US Marshals to enforce a questionable civil contempt decree from the judicial branch? This 'assumption of authority' bullshit is getting serious, sportsfans. It may be 'time', in the Claire Wolf sense...
Try to find one who will do it without a marriage license.
For who? To do what?
Most likely the Head Homeboi at the alleged Justice Department. 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)
Contempt is a matter of equity, not law. When the judge issues and order, he intends to be obeyed. When somebody defies him, he throws that person in jail. There are no further proceedings, or trial, or anything, until the jailed person obeys the judge. That's equity for you. Always has been that way.
It may be 'time', in the Claire Wolf sense... "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." - Claire Wolf
Yep. Our elected and unelected officials ignore laws daily. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
It's counterintuitive to our basic principles that when a constitutional issue is being raised, that a judge can jail the opposition for contempt.. Yep, that's one of the reasons we declared our independence from despots that use "equity" to ignore our inalienable rights. Shakespeare was right. First, we should kill all the (fascistic) lawyers...
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. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/IB176.pdf IMPEACHMENT IN KENTUCKY
Contempt of court.
The clergy can conduct a marriage ceremony for anyone. Try to find one who will do it without a marriage license. I am sure that there are plenty that will. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Trouble is, whether it's Shakespeare or Claire Wolf, it's easy to talk about killing, but when it comes down to it, very few are willing to actually do that (thank God). Jefferson, that old felon, wrote truthfully when he said in the Declaration that people are apt to suffer wrongs as long as they're sufferable. People are wise to do so, because when it gets to the actual killin', that rapidly turns into the killin' AND DYIN' part, and most folks who are keen on "stringing the bastards up" are less keen on being front rank troops in the effort, because the front rank of such movements has a 90% or so death rate. Truth is, hardly anybody in America is willing to die for some abstract concept of "the Constitution". The "Claire Wolf" moment isn't going to come, at least not from white constitutionalists. My suggestion? Stop focusing on toy law and focus on real Law, which is God's law. It's shorter, has fewer procedures, and doesn't need anybody's assent. And the favors that come from following it often come fast.
Try to find one online.
The deputies could only do it if she authorized them, which brings about the same religious argument. She declined the offer. The deputies will not be issuing any licenses, at least for now.
Only Davis has the authority. The deputies cannot act unless Davis delegates to them the authority to do so. She refused. The only way to remove her is impeachment in the KY House and trial in the Senate.
I am sure that there are plenty that will. Try to find one online. Why should that matter? The Sacrament of Mariage is not a private thing. The Catholic Church announes the bands of marriage for several months before the actual ceremony, or it used to. There is no requirement that the Sacrament of Marriage also be something that satisfies the state's requirement for a state licensed marriage. Besides, why would a couple go to the internet to find a priest that they do not know and does not know them, in a parish in which they do not live, to administer the Sacrament of Marriage to them? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
How do you know that? Aren't the deputies agents of the state, not deputies of the Clerk? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
What is her crime? Then let the trial begin... Just as you posted earlier : ---
Doesn't that depend on the County's regulations and/or bylaws or equivalent? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
http://supreme.justia.com/us/149/304/case.html In Nix v. Hedden, U.S. 304 (1893), SCOTUS ruled, "Tomatoes are 'vegetables,' and not 'fruit,' within the meaning of the Tariff Act of March 3, 1883, c. 121." The laws of nature do not apply to SCOTUS.
Yep, that's one of the reasons we declared our independence from despots that use "equity" to ignore our inalienable rights. Shakespeare was right. First, we should kill all the (fascistic) lawyers... Tell that to the millions of men that have died in America's wars, defending our freedoms. Thanks for displaying your true stripe once again, vicomte. It's refreshing to see a man tell the honest truth about himself, despite the fact that it is repugnant..
I believe only she holds the elected authority and she has refused an offer of release this afternoon conditioned upon her delegating her authority. Five deputies indicated they were agreeable to issuing licenses, the sixth declined (her daughter I believe). http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/02/qa-ky-clerk-gay-marriage-license-case/71567812/ Andrew Wolfson, [...] Question: Why hasn’t Kim Davis been fired for refusing to issue marriage licenses and defying court orders? Answer: She is an elected official and can only be removed from office for impeachment. Q: How would she be impeached? A: The Kentucky House of Representatives would have to charge her with an impeachable offense and the Senate would then try her. Q: Is that likely? A: The Kentucky Equality Federation, a gay rights group, has called for Gov. Steve Beshear to call a special session of the General Assembly to pursue impeachment. But Beshear, citing costs, has already declined to convene a special session to consider emergency legislation that would accommodate Davis and other clerks by having state government issue marriage licenses. Also, Bluegrass Polls show most Kentucky voters oppose gay marriage and support accommodating Davis. Beshear declined to comment Tuesday. The above seems to confirm what I heard that the legislature was not in session and the governor has no current plans to recall them. It appears to me that the KY government is "innocently" resisting the Federal government and is slow walking this. It may be a while.
I have a very good friend that is a deputy town clerk inside the jurisdiction I policed. I'm also very good friends with the elected clerk. It was told to me that the deputy clerk is sworn in by the clear k with the same powers the clerk has in the clerks absence and acts as the elected clerk in her absence... period. The clerk is absent. What does this clerk do when she's on vacation, calls in sick or is away from the office, delicate authority before she leaves and recinds it when she returns a few thousand times a year? I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
It states that the source of all power of the Counties and county offices exist and operate only under auhtority delegated by the state. One of the required officers of counties in Kentucky is the County Clerk. The County Clerk cannot make up the rules of his/her duties and responsibilities. Perhaps you know the legal basis for how the Clerk can prevent the Deputy Clerks for conducting the legal business of the Office which authority is delegated to the Clerk's Office by the state? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
That is how many government offices and private corporations work. There must be an official delegation of authority, either statutory or via bylaws or the equivalent, to cover absences of the normally apapropriately delegated person for the conduct of business to be valid. These things are not left to chance. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
There have been NO licenses being issued since the SCOTUS decision. Not same sex or opposite sex. None whatever. It appears the deputies lack authority. Possibly Davis revoked any delegation of authority, if it existed. The misconduct at this time is not performing the duties of the office. If she were to issue opposite sex licenses and not same sex licenses, then she might be charged with a crime.
Deputies get their authority by delegation from the elected official. The authority is delegated to the elected official, not the general office. If she does not grant, or withdraws delegation of authority, they do not have it. The office has been issuing NO licenses whatever since the SCOTUS decision.
That's my understanding. I'm thinking her deputy clerk and the other clerks decided to stand behind their boss and unite... off the record. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Doesn't that depend on the County's regulations and/or bylaws or equivalent? I believe only she holds the elected authority...... She holds the elected office. She does not own the authority delegated to the office by the state, that belongs to the office not the individual to do with as she pleases. She is clearly refusing to personally execise the authority delegated to the office by the state based on her personal religious beliefs. I find it difficult to believe that she can legally prevent her deputies from exercising the authority of the office, especially in her absence. I am sure that there is controlling law on this subject. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Authorizing her subordinate a license with her name on it raises the same moral question, and she has declined. Non-elected officials can be fired or suspended and replaced. I don't think the state is fighting what she is doing. Think of this politically if she remains in jail for a few months or more.
I believe that you are wrong (see post 149). This is the link to the pdf www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/ib114.pdf. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Cops have no clear guiding principal other than a doughnut & Kup o' Koffe. 'Tis kinda kool to see you vacillating your earlier comments into the "unknown zone."
It belongs to an elected individual and cannot just be bestowed to an unelected official not holding the office of County Clerk. She can prevent her deputies from exercising the authority of her elected office of County Clerk by not delegating her authority to them, or by revoking an existing delegation of authority. Davis is the County Clerk and nobody else. The governor could recall congress and impeach her tomorrow, if they chose to do so.
I'm not flip flopping on anything... I merely point out the things you're to ignorant to think on your own... from both sides. I haven't even stated my opinion on this... other than I don't feel bad for the faggots. I know you and Commie Sanders feels bad for the faggots. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Then why would the deputies agree to issue the licenses if she has declined to do so? She would be a hypocrite if she had the ability to prevent her deputies from issuing license and didn't use it. It doesn't matter if the state is not fighting what she is doing, these are precedent setting events which will have many unintended consequences for the state one way or the other. Read page 74 of the link I provided, Liability For Deputies (of the Office of Clerk). потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Please read the link that I provided you, especially page 74. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
The authority belongs to Kim Davis as the elected County Clerk. No deputy has any authority except as delegated by Kim Davis, the County Clerk. The authority is not given to the county clerk's office, it is given to the County Clerk, the elected official. Then the elected official can delegate the authority to subordinates. Or not. She has a job to do. She is not doing it. She claims a new obligation (issuance of same sex marriage licenses) violates her faith based moral convictions. The Feds can order such licenses be issued, but cannot issue them, and cannot force her to issue them, but can penalize her for refusing to issue them. So, she sits in jail. As long as she chooses to sit in jail, and the state does not act to remove her from office, one may view a big middle finger going from Kentucky to Washington, D.C. If it goes on for a few months, what does the Fed do? Can they order the state to call a special session of the state congress?
If the duputies issue the licenses as they appear to have agreed to do, then the Fed doesn't have to do anything at all - other than perhaps give Davis the finger as she rots in jail. This is not a win situation for her, even if the state is passively on her side. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/ib114.pdf Duties of Elected County Officials Legislative Research Commission At 53: County Clerk Kentucky’s Constitution of 1850 was the first to mention the office of county court clerk, providing for a clerk’s election in each county for a term of 4 years (Art. VI, sec. 1). The current constitution requires the election of a county court clerk in each county for a term of 4 years (Ky. Const., sec. 99). Before the institution of the unified state court system, the county court clerk served as the clerk of the juvenile, county, and quarterly courts. Since the time when the District Court replaced these courts, the clerk has no longer had judicial duties, and the name of the office has been abbreviated to county clerk to more accurately reflect the nature of the office. The duties of the county clerk fall into the general categories of clerical duties of the fiscal court: issuing and registering, recording and keeping various legal records, registering and purging voter rolls, conducting election duties, and conducting tax duties. At 74: KRS 62.210 makes the office of the county clerk, rather than the individual officeholder, liable for the acts or omissions of deputy clerks. A deputy is liable to the clerk for damages and costs for any acts or omissions discharged by the clerk. Black's Law Dictionary I see nothing relevant regarding the liability for the deputies. The office of the county clerk is liable, and not the County Clerk personally, for damages due to the acts or omissions of the deputies. The County Clerk defines what acts the deputies are authorized and obligated to discharge. If she does not authorize her deputies to issue marriage licenses, and they do not issue marriage licenses, they are not liable for any omission by non-performance. The deputies derive their authority by being duty authorized by an officer, in this case the County Clerk, to exercise some or all of the functions pertaining to the office, in this case the office of the County Clerk. Davis has chosen to not authorize her deputies to issue marriage licenses. Without her authorization, they do not have authorization. She was elected by the people and authorized by the people to exercise the duties of the office of County Clerk.
I'm thinking the sodomite couple would have found a different jurisdiction to get a license if a Muslim or Jew refused them. This was direct action against a known target. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Without a delegation of authority by the County Clerk, the deputies have no lawful authority to issue the licenses in the name of the Clerk. The deputies stated they would. The court offered to set Davis free if she would delegate her authority and do nothing to interfere with the deputies issuing licenses. Davis refused. That's why she remains in jail tonight. And why there will be no licenses issued tomorrow, unless Davis changes her mind.
Of course, if getting married was their priority, they would go to a clerk who would issue them a license. And I'm thinking KY authorities are in support of Davis and are in no hurry to do anything. Think Andrew Jackson. The Supreme Court made its decision. Now let them enforce it. Impeachment certainly won't begin until the KY congress is called back into session.
I have no idea of violating your oath of office is a crime that rates jail time in that state or not,but I think it is irrelevant because I suspect the state is going to satisfy itself to drop that hot potato by just removing her from office and maybe giving her some sort of suspended sentence. You know I would think that when she took her oath of office she swore to do so with one hand on the Bible and said "So help me God". Which I would think also means she is supposed to support all the covenants that God put forth. (And we all know what the Bible says about homos, it's been discussed many times before on multiple forums). So it would seem to me that she is doing what she took an oath to do when she took office and the Feds are trying to make her break it. You know I'm curious as to how many of those feds also took their oath of office by swearing on a Bible? And are knowingly violating that oath? Sounds like it's the Feds who need to be thrown in jail not her, especially the judge and the persons pulling his strings! Also those in the USSC for violating theirs by allowing homo marriage in the first place. Which is as we all know is a political issue not a Constitutional one!!! Tell that to the millions of men that have died in America's wars, defending our freedoms. Thanks for displaying your true stripe once again, vicomte. It's refreshing to see a man tell the honest truth about himself, despite the fact that it is repugnant.. He still hasn't learned that there is a difference between France and America... DELETED Pedophile propaganda. Stay off the faggot threads Peter.
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)
Faggot marriage isn't a law. It's an usurption. Now stay the fuck off these threads. We don't need you spreading your pedophile philisophy.
What would be the reaction if she were Muslim? What a circus. Hey stupid. She was divorced before she became a christian. So take your faggot talking points and shove them up Petes ass.
What prevents these gays from simply going to the next county and getting a license. Or, having a lawyer draw up an agreement where they will have inheritance rights, etc?
Si vis pacem, para bellum
It would appear. About time some state did so! Hopefully encourage some others to do so as well! Si vis pacem, para bellum
You know I'm curious as to how many of those feds also took their oath of office by swearing on a Bible? And are knowingly violating that oath? Sounds like it's the Feds who need to be thrown in jail not her, especially the judge and the persons pulling his strings! Also those in the USSC for violating theirs by allowing homo marriage in the first place. Which is as we all know is a political issue not a Constitutional one!!! A very interesting perspective. I believe the use of a Bible to take an oath stemmed from the traditions of earthly and Divine witness. Not every President, for example, used a Bible when they took their oath of office. Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath in 1901. Barack Obama, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, and Richard Nixon (also a Quaker) swore the oath on two Bibles. John Quincy Adams swore on a book of law, with the intention that he was swearing on the constitution. Seems it has always been optional given the wide historical examples above. Which makes sense in a society which does not impose religion on a person, but is supposed to respect those religious convictions based on the very Constitution government officials take an oath to defend and uphold. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
True. However, if the time comes that those wrongs are no longer sufferable, it will be a different game. And those that have dished out the wrongs, will be in for a shocking surprise. Si vis pacem, para bellum
Funny thing about swearing oaths on the Bible... In that Bible Jesus commands Christians to never swear oaths. So, swearing an oath on the Bible is either an ignorant and embarrassing act, or it's giving God the finger.
The men who died to get the WMD in Iraq, or who died in Somalia, or who died in Vietnam, or in Korea, were "defending America's freedoms"? From whom? In World War I, America declared war on Germany and sent troops to Europe to invade Germany. Germany was not attacking America's freedoms. In the Spanish-American War, America invaded Cuba and Puerto Rico and the Philippines, and then stayed and fought a guerilla in the Philippines that cost thousands of American lives. The Filipinos were not threatening America's freedoms. Neither were the Cubans or the Spanish. In the Indian Wars on the Great Plains, America was invading other people's land and taking away their freedoms. The Sioux were not threatening American freedoms anywhere - they were resisting American invasion and suppression of THEIR freedoms. In the Civil War, which side was fighting for American freedoms? Was it the South, with 40% of its population chained slaves? No? Well, was it the North then? Was the North the great champion of American freedom in the Civil War? Or was the North just fighting to preserve the supremacy of the government. A million people died in that war. Who died for "America's Freedoms"? And freedom FROM whom? Americans? In the War of 1812, the Americans declared war and then invaded Canada and lost. America went to war to grab somebody else's land, and the Americans DID drive out the Creeks from their own lands. American Freedoms were not the issue in 1812, unless by that we mean the alleged "freedom" of America to conquer other people and take their land. And now we're back to the American Revolution, in which some Americans fought other Americans and the British in order to break away and establish a new government. The French ALSO fought and died in the American War of Independence. In fact, without French arms and munitions, and the French Navy and French Army, the Americans would have lost their war of Independence. So, when we look back over American history, we find TWO wars in which Americans were actually fighting for freedom: the American Revolution and World War II. And in both of THOSE wars French men were ALSO fighting and dying for freedom, for the exact same cause. So no, there is nothing exceptional about American soldiers getting killed in a bunch of imperial wars for American expansion and power, and no, those wars were not about American freedom. The Revolution and World War II were about American freedom, and the French fought and died in those wars too.
Not all that much. Both are democracies. Both had revolutions. Both are middle-class Republics. Both have been allies in the two great struggles for American freedom: the American Revolution and World War II. Pretty tough for me to distinguish anything but cultural differences between France and America. And even the cultural differences are not all that different. The languages are a bit different, but quite close in concept and vocabulary. None of this is terribly surprising: France and England come out of the same people, and America came out of England. French bread is generally better than American bread. So yes, there are differences between France and America. No, they don't count for much.
I see this morning that one of the clerks has issue a license. I have seen no report of how the clerk was authorized to do so, or if he had the authority, why no licenses were issued for the past month or so.
That already is happening in places like Ferguson. It's never going to happen in white America.
He has the authority because nobody will stop him and the courts will recognize the acts, because of the actions of the Clerk in jail. When it comes to American law, might makes right.
Obviously there is more to the story than we can know. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
If there was no lawful delegation of authority, the happy couples(s) could find the purported marriage challenged later in Kentucky court.
That is my understanding as well. 17 This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, 18 having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart; 19 who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. 20 But you have not so learned Christ, 21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: 22 that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, 23 and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, 24 and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness. Now, in the eyes of the Father our past sins are forgiven and washed clean as the Father now looks on the Born of the Spirit Christian and sees His Son Jesus Christ and His Righteousness. But the sins and failures of our past do have temporal (earthly) consequences and challenges. The sin is forgiven and forgotten by God. However, let's say man was married had an affair and got another woman pregnant. She has the child. That man still has the temporal challenges and consequences of the affair with regards to his marriage and also the responsibility to provide for the child conceived and born in adultery. Sin forgiven for the repentant sinner coming to Christ. The consequences of sin in this earthly life remain with us. Good example from the Bible is King David's adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband Uriah. David and Bathsheba suffered the temporal consequences of their sin, yet God quickly forgave them. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Absolutely nothing. Just as a doctor can be an OB GYN and refuse to perform abortions and tubal ligation surgery. Women who want these procedures go to another doctor. Just as the Walmart pharmacy where I once lived in OK had a big sign saying "we do not fill birth control prescriptions." Women who wanted such prescriptions filled went to the CVS across the street. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
I managed to read your reply before it got "ZOTTED" and I think today's man is presumptuous in believing his laws out weigh Gods laws, I also think the Founding Fathers did too. Without them realizing it way back then the world would be a much "schittier" place.
And the ones bringing the challenge will be slapped down by said courts, and may have civil penalties imposed on plaintiffs, and professional sanctions on the lawyers. The issue of gay marriage is stare decisis. We are now in the phase that we were in the 1960s, with one Southern redneck after another walking into court to get guillotined. The decision has been made, and now the courts and law enforcement will enforce it, with rigor, and with a punitive mindset, to break the resistance and put fear into those who would resist. We have a long history of breaking resistance in America, and that experience will be brought to bear here. The proper place to fight this is for Christians to look back at what they are SUPPOSED to be doing, reform themselves and their churches to bring it perfectly in line (so that there can be no argument). Then Christians will find themselves remarkably free and remarkably cohesive, and relatively quite rich, and exclusive. And then they can act in very Christian ways that are so advantageous that those left outside will scream "unfair!" but there will be no access other than conversion. You disempower the state by being perfect, according to your own declared moral standards. Then nothing else matters, and the state and its petty laws and obsessions really become nothing. Or, if the state becomes too oppressive, you shuck off one country and move to another. The world belongs to God, and the whole thing belongs to God's people. Local tribes think they own it because they have put an arbitrary boundary by force. They're wrong. They only have what they can hold, and pagans are weak for money and pleasure and power, so they can always be divided among themselves.
I see this morning that one of the clerks has issue a license. I have seen no report of how the clerk was authorized to do so, or if he had the authority, why no licenses were issued for the past month or so. Is it a possibility another state or county official with the same authority delegated said authority? "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Unless the Christian is unforgiving of the sins of others. Then the Father recalls the sins and punishes the Christian using the measure by which the Christian measured. Recall that in the parable of the unforgiving servant, the servant had ALREADY BEEN FORGIVEN everything by the ruler, but then after his forgiveness he went out and was himself brutally unforgiving. The ruler had that man hauled BACK before him, UN-forgave the forgiveness, and threw the man into the torture chamber BECAUSE he had been unforgiving. And Jesus said that the Father will do exactly that to you. So in fact your sins are forgiven, and the Father wants to forgive them, but they are never completely gone, and if the Christian defies God's commandment of mercy and forgiveness, then God brings to bear his commandment and promise stated by Jesus - the sins are then recalled by God, and the man is judged by the measure by which he judged. The ONLY WAY to be forgiven your sins is by being forgiving and merciful to other men. The Christian who is baptized, loves God and is "saved" and forgiven, but who then is harsh and unforgiving, is judged by the unforgiving standard that he himself has set, and is thrown into the flames at the end. Jesus promised this. "What good does it do you to say that you follow me if you do not keep my commandments?" - Jesus Christians keep trying to make it easier than it is. It is not easy. The path is confining and narrow and few find it or stay on it. Christians who remain men seeking the power to judge and dominate have failed to listen to Jesus, and have doomed themselves to Gehenna. Forgiveness and mercy to other men is required for your own salvation. You are a sinner - all of your sins are forgiven IF you follow Jesus. Following Jesus means doing what he said. He said that God will forgive you all of your sins if, and only if, you forgive other men all of theirs. If you do not, you will not be forgiven. And the example Jesus gave directly on point showed the ruler REVOKING the complete forgiveness he had just given to a man BECAUSE that man went out and was unforgiving to other men. And Jesus said that the Father would do EXACTLY the same thing to every Christian who is not forgiving. Unforgiving Christians go to hell. There is no heaven for those who refuse to forgive. Because the degree of forgiveness that men have for other men sets the standard by which God forgives them. If you want to be forgiven every sin, you must forgive every sin. God is asking nothing more than you are asking of him. Jesus said that swearing oaths was from the Devil. Christians should never swear oaths. Traditions that say otherwise are Satanic. To swear an oath with your hand on the Bible is to give God the finger - he says IN that Bible: DO NOT SWEAR AT ALL. So, why is the Christian standing there defying God, invoking God's presence to do an evil act. The Christians Yes is all he should give. And if a state DEMANDS an oath, it is demanding an evil act. Whoever and whatever DEMANDS an oath is an evil organization, not a good one, for it demands an explicit act of evil. God's words are clear and repeated, and they are to be taken literally. That strips away a lot of tradition and law. What is left is remarkably free. And it is a struggle for God to KEEP it free, by throwing down all attempts to regulate men that exceed the regulations that God placed on men. God did not give men the power to regulate other men more closely than he regulates them. So when men try, it is always evil by definition, and Christians should never cooperate with them. Christians should start in their own lives - forgiving all. And in their families, not exercising excessive harshness, and teaching the truth. And Christians should force their churches to drop all traditions contrary to God, and to stop teaching traditions that are contrary to God. And Christians should stop giving financial support to any Church that will not drop EVERY error. There is no excuse for error. Error is what defies God. It is a defiance to ADD things to God's law. Because God's law is so short, if Christians just do that they will find themselves in unity. And they will have the Holy Spirit with them always. When a man puts his hand on the Bible and swears and oath before God, he is giving Jesus and the Father the finger. How much "Holy Spirit" is there in that act? If a man thinks he is filled with spirit as he does it, that merely shows how easily deceived men are by the actions of spirits.
Go to this link http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/ib114.pdf for more info on the delegation of powers to County Offices in KY. Page 74 has info on Deputies of the Office of Clerk. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I suspect this situation is far from over. And according to family, Rowan County Ky has a lot of Christian people, and a lot of Amish. I would suspect that this Clerk will continue to be reelected as long as she wants the position. Time will tell. Si vis pacem, para bellum
Why is that? Si vis pacem, para bellum
Tell that to the millions of men that have died in America's wars, defending our freedoms. Thanks for displaying your true stripe once again, vicomte. It's refreshing to see a man tell the honest truth about himself, despite the fact that it is repugnant.. By all means, keep digging deeper in that shit-hole you're in....
Recall that in the parable of the unforgiving servant, the servant had ALREADY BEEN FORGIVEN everything by the ruler, but then after his forgiveness he went out and was himself brutally unforgiving. The ruler had that man hauled BACK before him, UN-forgave the forgiveness, and threw the man into the torture chamber BECAUSE he had been unforgiving. And Jesus said that the Father will do exactly that to you. That's a good example. However, I never saw the unforgiving servant as a "Christian." I always saw him as an example of: Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. 2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it. So with the unforgiving servant it is a matter of disbelief...you will know them by their fruits. So in fact your sins are forgiven, and the Father wants to forgive them, but they are never completely gone, and if the Christian defies God's commandment of mercy and forgiveness, then God brings to bear his commandment and promise stated by Jesus - the sins are then recalled by God, and the man is judged by the measure by which he judged. 19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, 20 and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before, 21 whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. Isaiah 43: 24 You have bought Me no sweet cane with money, Nor have you satisfied Me with the fat of your sacrifices; But you have burdened Me with your sins, You have wearied Me with your iniquities. 25 “I, even I, am He who blots out your transgressions for My own sake; And I will not remember your sins. 26 Put Me in remembrance; Let us contend together; State your case, that you may be acquitted. Isaiah 44: 22 I have blotted out, like a thick cloud, your transgressions, And like a cloud, your sins. Return to Me, for I have redeemed you.” 23 Sing, O heavens, for the Lord has done it! Shout, you lower parts of the earth; Break forth into singing, you mountains, O forest, and every tree in it! For the Lord has redeemed Jacob, And glorified Himself in Israel. Isaiah 1: 18 “Come now, and let us reason together,” Says the Lord, “Though your sins are like scarlet, They shall be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They shall be as wool. The sins are blotted out or they are not. You are implying that sins are not blotted out but 'hang around' to snare a believer later on. Now the following will show that only those who are born of God's Spirit will seek to follow the footprints of Jesus Christ and seek out His Righteousness. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. 1 John 1: 5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all. 6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. 8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. John 3: 18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” The unforgiving servant was a wicked jerk who never believed his master would fully forgive him. That's why he shook down those under him to get his money back. He rejected the grace of his master and demonstrated such by not being graceful himself. There's a saying for that too: 18 Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. Ultimately, one could take all of the above and form whatever theology they want. What matters is the 'spark' which starts the fire in the first place. Of which of all the laws, commands and statutes none matter if one is not placed by God in right standing with Him: 5 Jesus answered,“Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Amen! 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.” "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
No. The below excerpt from USA Today makes clear that the clerks expressed reservations, the judge said the couples can choose whether or not to take the risk, and the lawyers for Davis also called into question the legality of such issuing of licenses. This all depends on whether Kim Davis is acting alone or if she is part of an organized effort to defy Obergefell, and who is supporting her. If the state is backing her, and Fed orders the issuance of licenses, they can tell the clerks to go ahead and obey his order. Kim Davis will get out of jail and notify a Kentucky court of the unlawfully issued licenses, and Kentucky can declare any such marriages null and void. [excerpt] Kim Davis' lawyers also called into question whether any licenses issued in her absence would be legal. But Bunning said couples will have to decide whether to take that risk on their own. He indicated that he would lift the contempt charge against the defiant county clerk if deputies began issuing marriage licenses but said he was reluctant to release Kim Davis on Friday because of the possibility that she would stop the process and again try to go through the courts in a sort of ping-pong match. He also warned Nathan Davis against interfering with same-sex couples getting marriage licenses. Allowing Kim Davis, who previously has said she is an Apostolic Christian, to defy a court order could create a ripple effect among other county clerks, Bunning said. Two other clerks in the state — Casey Davis in Casey County and Kay Schwartz in Whitley County — also had stopped issuing marriage licenses but have not had lawsuits filed against them. "Her good-faith belief is simply not a viable defense," said Bunning, who said he also has deeply held religious beliefs. "Oaths mean things."
The issuance of licenses without the proper authority to do so is not stare decisis that I know of. A federal judge cannot "authorize" a state worker to issue state licenses.
Just where was it established that Pete is "spreading -- pedophile philisophy"?
Jesus said: 24 “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. 25 O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. 26 And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.” So I ask...Is your hypothetical 'christian' who is a wicked jerk disobeying God's Love Commands have "in them" the love of God? What's God's part in all of this? Just words on stone or paper, or does He really change, transform, make us new creatures by His Grace and Mercy? The answer is, God does do the work of regeneration in our lives: 25 Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Jeremiah 31: 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” The result of 'saved by God's Grace, through faith' is a regenerated soul. Are you implying the wicked servant was a regenerated soul? I know you avoid Paul's epistles because He is not God. But I do believe his epistles and the epistles of the original apostles are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Paul, Peter, John et. al. claim such so we either believe them or reject them as false prophets. Because God is not a God of confusion. Just wanted to posit that disclaimer before I quote Paul. What would be Paul's advice for the wicked servant who would not forgive? 5 Examine yourselves as to whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not know yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?— unless indeed you are disqualified. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
Equal Constitutional rights of gays to marry is stare decisis. Mickey Mouse procedural efforts to block it from happening are the same thing as racist efforts to resist desegregation. There are all sorts of little jinks and janks that people take to try to avoid the application of a law they don't like. But because the principle itself has been decided, every one of those efforts at resistance will be systematically mowed down. And if history is any guide, the efforts to use structural barriers that historically would have prevented something, merely ends up with that structure being removed or modified by court order, changing the very fabric of the political structure. We've seen it with segregation and desegregation, we've seen it with the drug war, and we've seen it with abortion. Once the court takes a stance, when the rearguard resistance happens, each element that resists the main decision then becomes the basis for a new round of decisions that essentially strip the resisting government agencies of some power they have theretofore enjoyed. The tide is too strong: the secular state WILL HAVE gay marriage, and every state official or structure that tries to resist it will be broken to force the answer. That, in turn, will leave the state institutions permanently weaker: they picked the wrong battlefield on which to fight. I've been writing about the right answer to this issue. Christians need to turn away from the idea that they need a state licensing of their wedding, and they need to turn away also from any of their Churches that will not bless their weddings without the license. Christians need to be the ones to build on the corpus of contractual law and other rights that the gays built up during the years before gay marriage. When gays could not marry, they nevertheless used the law to create structures that effectively got them everything that marriage does. Gay marriage, then, is about symbol. The symbolism for Christians is important, and NOW they need to focus on it. Neither the Church nor the State creates marriage, nor has any power to block it, nor has any control on it. Christians need to empower themselves by following their God's law. State "marriage" has become a joke. Christians need to stop doing it. Stop getting marriage licenses. Stop having judges perform weddings. Christian clergy need to perform weddings without requiring a marriage license. The Church needs to assert marriage as a sacrament that is outside of the boundaries of the state. For state matters, Christians need to use the state's basic laws of contract and other regulations that gays used for decades, to achieve roughly the same results. If Christians WANT to, they can go buy the state marriage license. The POINT, though, is that Christians need to assert the supremacy of God's law over both their churches - ending the absurd pretension that a Church's approval is required for a marriage precisely BECAUSE the Churches have been eunuched and serve now to enforce the states' marriage license requirements. Think how much political power the gays gained from the fact that they had to work to get legal norms to facilitate their lifestyles. All of those tools are there. If Christians return to the real meaning of marriage, they will eliminate the state from their calculations, and formal state marriage will become a province of seculars and gays only: Christians will shun it. It will be visible and swiftly felt. And this also gives the Christians control over their Churches and clergy: break the law and marry us, or we leave your church for a real church that will. Some creative destruction of the ossified, dying Churches is needed. Once Christians fully realize that they can marry at will, and have most of the alleged benefits of marriage, by doing so they will become more Christian - in the sense that they will slay a false tradition of the NECESSITY of the clergy in marriage. They will make the Church cleaner and truer, and they will form a great mailed fist of political force. The issue will come down to Social Security. The state will dangle Social Security survivors benefits for spouses only as the means by which to force Christians into state marriages. But Common Law marriage doctrines already supersede this. Up to now, the argument has been to not oppress gays. It's hard to argue, secularly, why gays should be oppressed. But with gay marriage and equal rights, the notion now that Christians who recuse themselves should be oppressed to take the state's license - THAT is something that Christians of all stripes (once they understand the truth about marriage) - will be able to resist, and will have a powerful financial incentive to resist.
I'm sure she never swore an oath to compromise her religious/faith convictions. But she and now every Christian in the US now know that they will be thrown in jail if they refuse an order from the federal government which compromises their conscience. "The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever.”"---Isaiah 40:8
You are reading Paul to cancel Jesus. Jesus said explicitly, as commandments, that to be forgiven your sins you MUST forgive the sins of other men, and that if you don't, you SHALL NOT be forgiven your sins by God either. Further, he gave a whole parable on it that explicitly and directly said that God will do the same thing to you if you do not forgive. If you do not follow Jesus, you are not forgiven your sins. If you do not forgive others their trespasses, you are not forgiven your sins. Following Jesus alone is not enough, because if you are not merciful and do not forgive other men your sins, Jesus has said your are not forgiven. I understand this desire to see a status: I've converted, and therefore. But Jesus makes it clear to converted, baptized Churches that salvation is only for those who continue to do the deeds he's required. Otherwise, spewed out of the mouth.
Of course they will. Consider the Fugitive Slave Act. Consider the role of the federal judge, or marshall, in the age of slavery. Consider the order to ride down and kill an Indian village. Consider the order to nuke a city full of women and children. If you obey those orders, you go to hell. If you disobey them, you go to jail. You cannot serve both God and mammon. America is mammon, and always has been.
I'm sure she never swore an oath to compromise her religious/faith convictions. By swearing an oath at all, she defied Jesus' commandment not to swear oaths.
By all means, keep digging deeper in that shit-hole you're in.... I am telling the truth.
I get the distinct impression he thinks white folks are sheep nowadays.
No. White people (and black and yellow and red) SHOULD all be sheep, following the Good Shepherd Jesus, turning neither to the left nor to the right. That would be ideal. They're not doing that. They're not sheep. What they are, is aging, and struggling to stay afloat, unable to cooperate with each other or agree on right and wrong, and relatively immoral. This is not the grounds on which revolutions are made.
The stuff from the cited page 74 is quoted at my 164. It appears a county judge/executive may issue a license in the absence of the clerk. Whether the clerk is considered absent while jailed for contempt is another question. It appears no county judge/executive has volunteered to incur all the responsibilities of the county clerk. The KY statutes appear not to have changed following Obergefell and the KY legislature is not due to come back into session until next year. www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/ib114.pdf At 20: Marriages County judges/executive may perform marriage ceremonies. They may also authorize justices of the peace and fiscal court commissioners in their respective counties to perform marriages (KRS 402.050). In the absence of the county clerk, the county judge/executive may issue a marriage license (KRS 402.240). At 54: http://law.justia.com/codes/kentucky/2009/402-00/pdf/240.pdf In the absence of the county clerk, or during a vacancy in the office, the county judge/executive may issue the license and, in so doing, he shall perform the duties and incur all the responsibilities of the clerk. The county judge/executive shall return a memorandum thereof to the clerk, and the memorandum shall be recorded as if the license had been issued by the clerk. Effective: October 1, 1942 History: Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 2113. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39205 KRS Chapter 402 - Marriage (Index) KRS Chapter 402 Includes enactments through the 2015 Regular Session The KRS database was last updated on 09/04/2015 http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36464 .005 Definition of marriage. As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex. Effective: July 15, 1998 History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36466 .020 Other prohibited marriages. (1) Marriage is prohibited and void: (a) With a person who has been adjudged mentally disabled by a court of competent jurisdiction; (b) Where there is a husband or wife living, from whom the person marrying has not been divorced; (c) When not solemnized or contracted in the presence of an authorized person or society; (d) Between members of the same sex; (e) Between more than two (2) persons; and (f) 1. Except as provided in subparagraph 3. of this paragraph, when at the time of the marriage, the person is under sixteen (16) years of age; 2. Except as provided in subparagraph 3. of this paragraph, when at the time of marriage, the person is under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16) years of age, if the marriage is without the consent of: a. The father or the mother of the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16), if the parents are married, the parents are not legally separated, no legal guardian has been appointed for the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16), and no court order has been issued granting custody of the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16) to a party other than the father or mother; b. Both the father and the mother, if both be living and the parents are divorced or legally separated, and a court order of joint custody to the parents of the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16) has been issued and is in effect; c. The surviving parent, if the parents were divorced or legally separated, and a court order of joint custody to the parents of the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16) was issued prior to the death of either the father or mother, which order remains in effect; d. The custodial parent, as established by a court order which has not been superseded, where the parents are divorced or legally separated and joint custody of the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16) has not been ordered; or e. Another person having lawful custodial charge of the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16), but 3. In case of pregnancy the male and female, or either of them, specified in subparagraph 1. or 2. of this paragraph, may apply to a District Judge for permission to marry, which application may be granted, in the form of a written court order, in the discretion of the judge. There shall be a fee of five dollars ($5) for hearing each such application. (2) For purposes of this section "parent," "father," or "mother" means the natural parent, father, or mother of a child under eighteen (18) unless an adoption takes place pursuant to legal process, in which case the adoptive parent, father, or mother shall be considered the parent, father, or mother to the exclusion of the natural parent, father, or mother, as applicable. Effective: History: -- Amended 1988 Ky. Acts ch. 212, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1988. -- Amended 1982 Ky. Acts ch. 141, sec. 113, effective July 1, 1982. -- Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 92, sec. 12, effective June 17, 1978. -- Amended 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 14, sec. 399, effective January 2, 1978. -- Amended 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 49, sec. 6; and ch. 386, sec. 90. -- Amended 1968 Ky. Acts ch. 200, sec. 10. -- Amended 1966 Ky. Acts ch. 72, sec. 1. -- Amended 1960 Ky. Acts ch. 8, sec. 1. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 2097. Legislative Research Commission Note (7/15/98). This section was amended by 1998 Ky. Acts chs. 122 and 258 which do not appear to be in conflict and have been codified together. Note: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36469 .045 Same-sex marriage in another jurisdiction void and unenforceable. http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36473 .080 Marriage license required -- Who may issue. -- Who may issue. No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk. Effective: History: -- Amended -- Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch. 384, sec. 518, effective June 17, 1978. -- Amended 1968 Ky. Acts ch. 100, sec. 14. -- Amended 1948 Ky. Acts ch. 42, sec. 1. -- Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1, effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec. 2105.
You never did answer my question in # 193
Si vis pacem, para bellum
I'm not arguing that other subject. Issuing a state license of any type without state authority to issue it is not stare decisis. Obergefell did not delegate any authority to the deputies. The Federal government cannot delegate authority to the deputies to issue state licenses. The sole source of that authority is the state. Kim Davis has not violated the equal rights of anyone. She has ceased issuing licenses altogether. All were treated equally. She has failed to perform a function of her job to issue licenses. http://abcnews.go.com/US/jailed-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-offers-remedy-sex/story?id=33532686 Sep 4, 2015, 8:01 AM ET Kim Davis thinks she has a solution to her problem. The Kentucky county clerk, jailed for failing to follow a judge’s orders to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, wants her name removed from the marriage certificates, her attorney Matthew Staver told ABC News. “She has a very strong conscience and she’s just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well,” Staver said. “That simple remedy has simply been ignored by the court and by the governor and that’s what should have been done. “I think it’s reprehensible that she’s in jail for this when a simple fix could have been easily handled.” Marriage licenses in Kentucky are required to include an authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license. Some state lawmakers, as well as the Kentucky County Clerks Association, have suggesting having clerks' names removed from marriage licenses. In the meantime, five of Davis’ deputies – facing the prospect of jail time themselves – are expected to start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples at the Rowan County Courthouse today. A sixth clerk, Kim Davis' son, remains a holdout but has not been jailed. [snip] If the documents indicate they were authorized by County Clerk Kim Davis, it would appear they are fraudulent.
It isn't. But it's a mere detail. If it becomes a means by which the will of the Supreme Court is resisted on the matter, then issuing the license will end up BECOMING stare decisis, because the Court will keep on bulldozing until they achieve compliance with their orders.
It appears a county judge/executive may issue a license in the absence of the clerk. Whether the clerk is considered absent while jailed for contempt is another question. It appears no county judge/executive has volunteered to incur all the responsibilities of the county clerk. The KY statutes appear not to have changed following Obergefell and the KY legislature is not due to come back into session until next year. For all of this and what you cite, who do you think will prevail, Davis or the Fed? Do you think any gay marriage under a license issued by a Deputy will be overturned or declared invaild? What gets Davis out of jail? When? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I suppose she swore an oath (or affirmed) to faithfully execute the duties of her office, but at a time when said duties did not include condoning same-sex marriage, something her moral standards will not permit her to do.
The Fed can bulldoze all it wants and not acquire the authority to issue state licenses. The Fed can punish and sanction until the state complies, but the Fed authorizing state officials to issue state licenses without state issued authorization will not enter into it. Defiance will eventually bring a rain of pain. That will be stare decisis.
She can always resign and even seek another office. She, and anyone else, including local and state governments are on the losing side of the issue. I guess it is possible the states can defy the Fed and refuse to issue marriage licenses to gays while they continue to issue such licenses to straights - welcome to the next potential civil war (which Christians will lose). потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You do not know as a matter of fact. Why would the Judge accept the issuance of the license under the ausices of a Deputy if the Judge know or had serious reason to believe that he was condoning a fraudulent act? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
That depends on how you define the word "authority". To me, authority is the power to force people against their will to accomplish an objective defined by the one with the authority.
The Fed, of course.
I didn't see it. Flurry of questions from many. I'll go look now, and answer it next.
Fed. Going up against the Fed, the only consideration is raw power. Yes. I fail to see how these fraudulent documents can be legally defended. Bending to the will of the court or resigning, or being impeached and removed from office. Dunno. If she is still in jail next year, the state might choose to impeach her when the legislature comes back into session. It may also be a matter of how long the Fed wants to keep the deputies churning out fraudulent documents, knowing they can be invalidated by a state court, returning to square one and maing the Fed court look silly. The documents will purport to have her authorization while she can be documented as being in jail for refusing to give her authorization. It is not clear how the Fed forces the state to issue gay marriage licenses where it chooses to issue no marriage licenses to anyone. If all but gay marriage licenses were issued, there could be drastic sanctions against the state for violation of the constitutional rights of gays. I suspect this is not a lone lady resisting, but an organized resistance effort. It appears to have been too carefully tailored to evade any federal charges for that to be accidental. I suspect many folks saying she must comply with the Constitution or the law or the court, probably would argue that the Fugitive Slave Clause deserved to be violated, or do not condemn the states or individuals who violated it. How many would say that Dred Scott (7-2) did not deserve compliance? For consideration, contains several suggestions: Roger Severino / September 04, 2015
Because he can. He wants licenses issued. He cannot issue them or grant anyone authorization to issue them. The Fed does not tolerate defiance. If Kim Davis can do it (or not do it) so can other clerks.
Why would the Judge accept the issuance of the license under the ausices of a Deputy if the Judge know or had serious reason to believe that he was condoning a fraudulent act? Because he can. Then he is knowingly committing a fraudlent act from his bench. IMO he would be in serious legal trouble for doing that. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Or the clerks can issue fraudulent licenses at Federal direction, and the state can invalidate them later. This is only one county, not the whole state. It cannot issue licenses selectively without invoking a whole bunch of Federal anti-discrimination sanctions. But it can just stop issuing licenses at all, and not discriminate against any group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Texas Same Sex Marriage in Texas
He is a federal judge doing what is wanted. He will face nothing.
I don't think so. Issing of licenses by the Office Clerk is what the state authorizes and requires that office to do. The Clerk cannot willy nilly based on personal preferences stop issuing licenses to anyone which she knew before she took the job was a function of that office. What would be the basis for her to stop issuing licenses to straight couples or anyone that is entitled to a license by state law? HOw can she willy nilly decide to punish or inconvenience others that are entitled to the license? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Why is that? Demographics. War is a young man's game. The median age of the US Hispanic population is 27.5 - prime military age. The median age of the US White population is 42. Every year the median age of whites gets older. Every year the median age of Hispanics gets younger. In 1990, 70% of the young people in America were white. In 2010, 53% were. In ten years, between 2000 and 2010, the total number of white children declined by 4.3 million. With a median age of 42, and rising, the white population is mostly already past the age of fertility. Some 42 year olds have a child, but very few. The older the population, the more white. 73% of the population over age 50 is white. 79% of the population over 65. But when one looks at the under 20 population, half of it is non-white. White numbers are plunging, and the white fertility rate is far below replacement. Given economic conditions, and the median age of the white population, there is no possibility that white fertility will pick up either. The white population is spiralling downward. The black population is slowly declining. The Asian population is growing rapidly. And the Hispanic population is young, fertile and surging. There is nothing on the horizon that suggests that white demographic decline is slowing. Rather, it is accelerating. Whites are aging, dwindling in numbers, and have a declining fertility rate. The median age of whites is 42, but only 5.6% of the military is over 42. In 1995, 10% of the military officer corps was minorities. Today, 22% is minority, and 32% of the enlisted. The whites are aging out, and the military forces are being replaced by minorities, mostly Hispanic, just like the rest of the population at large. The same thing is true of the police forces. In 1987, they were 15% minority. In 2013, that was up to 29%, and the trend is accelerating as whites age out and retire. So, you have an aging population of whites, having few children, moving towards retirement age or already in retirement. Social Security and Medicare are locked-in programs. Taxes will be increased on the rich as necessary to pay for that. Old people don't rebel in arms anyway, and old people who have basic security in retirement certainly don't. So, who is going to do the rebelling? An aging white middle class of the age that has families, obligations, mortgages and jobs? Rebellions come from the youth (see Ferguson), and white youth are already matched by minority youth, with that balance steadily shifting in the direction of minorities. And the military and police forces that would respond to a white rebellion are more and more and more Hispanic and young. So, who is going to rebel? Old people? No. That's never happened anywhere, and it's not going to happen here either. Who, then? Middle class whites with families and obligations? No. That doesn't happen either. People with families emigrate from problems. The young rebel. War is a young man's game. Where is the "white youth movement"? Young whites are the most tolerant and egalitarian. There is never going to be a substantial rebellion of white America. If there were, it would be middle aged crackpots, and the young, professional, large, well-armed, heavily minority police and military forces will crush the rebellion, and that will be that. That's why that is. And that's a good thing anyway. Christians should not be contemplating shedding blood. They should, rather, focus on having God's law memorized, conforming to it, and cooperating economically with others who follow God's law, following God's economic template. That's the only way to actually reverse the birth rate decline.
Or the clerks can issue putatively valid licenses at federal direction, which the state will ratify or lose federal funds and suffer other retaliatory measures. Nobody is going to fight this the way that the racists fought desegregation. The racists were numerous - even majoritarian in their areas - and they still lost. The only proper response is for Christians to turn back to the Law of God, refresh their understanding of it so that they cease to take foolish and suicidal political stances, and instead live as a growing and prosperous community apart, one that will have many advantages over the secular community.
IMO he would be in serious legal trouble for doing that. He is a federal judge doing what is wanted. He will face nothing. So we are back to where I always been, i.e. - a law is not enforced is de facto not a law. Also, the only rights that anyone de facto have are the ones that one can defend. We will soon be living in a live in a lawless land under the boot of the Emperor and his thugs in DC. A scoiety in whcih might makes right. Which of the bullies will be the first to physically wipe his ass with the U.S. Constitution? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
We always have. Since first settlement. It's just that in the past, that lawlessness and brutality favored the white WASP majority that made up the power base back then. The whites are no longer a majority of young people, and Christianity has faded because of its own internal evils, hypocrisies and moral compromises. So the people who were always accustomed to winning before are starting to lose as the wheel turns. But the ways they are losing are the ways that others were already losing before.
LOL! Scared you are going to start wearing dresses in public? BTW,Religious doctrine is NOT law. 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)
The shortage of tv cameras and lawsuits. 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 didn't realize Illustrious Leader was deleting my posts with prejudice. I wonder if they were making him start wearing a bow in his hair? 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 the "office" not only has the authority,but has the obligation. If you work there,you can do the deed. 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)
Me,too. She seems to be determined to be a martyr. It should be interesting to watch this shake out. 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 when he started playing dress-up and listening to Cher records. 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 sure it was never her intention to do so,but when it became apparent that was what was going to be happening,she should have either just resigned or stood aside and let someone else do it who wasn't bothered by it. 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)
It should be interesting to watch this shake out. Yeah, I'll bet Las Vegas probably has an over/under betting line by now on how long she'll be in the pokey. Between her and Trump who needs real news any more. Entertainment!
Don't the words "As shrewd as serpents" and "Freewill" also apply to your interpretation...
Just the usual, you disagree with his view of rights for homos...
I think he meant to "flippantly" swear an oath (like most of those in office nowadays) and I would say the term "false deities" also applies here... 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!!! Talk about being thrown under the bus for ignoring plantation policies... No doubt about that one. Gamblers are junkies that need their gambling fixes. They will bet on anything. 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)
The whole gender identity thing has their heads spinning so fast they have no idea which side to jump in on. Should they side with the original female that will be losing her job and maybe going to jail in a show of "You go,GURL!",or should they side with the new female with the fresh surgery scars,or maybe even with the pretend female with all the original males parts with no bolt-ons? Decisions,decisions,decisions! Trying to figure out which is the PC Pick might make their little heads explode. 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)
Following Jesus alone is not enough, because if you are not merciful and do not forgive other men your sins, Jesus has said your are not forgiven. "Following Jesus" -- isn't it a bit more than that? 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. EVEN IF we accept your premise that we will NOT "forgiven" by Jesus because we haven't "forgiven others," what about all the other sins still cluttering our tab? Sin is sin. You're presuming a categorical criteria of sin as "acceptable/non-acceptable" before the throne of Judgement. As Red has already pointed out -- as believers in the blood of Jesus -- we are either forgiven by the Grace of Jesus for the entire tab...or aren't. At the moment we expire, the flesh remains filthy in the eyes of the Lord without being washed in the blood of the lamb. I understand this desire to see a status: I've converted, and therefore. But Jesus makes it clear to converted, baptized Churches that salvation is only for those who continue to do the deeds he's required. Otherwise, spewed out of the mouth. ARE there some whose walk in Christ is done so haphazardly? Seemingly hypocrites? Of course. But I won't presume to know their heart or judge that "status" -- that's up to the Lord. "Log/eye" applies here. The Faithful are not concerned with status" other than growing as a Christian and knowing that Jesus has indeed reserved a room at our Father's "mansion." As to deeds, we've debated this countless times...now +1; NO number of "required" OR "good deeds" will EVER equal nor supersede what is ONLY the Grace of God that washes away the sin of man. That's not some sins, but ALL, brother.
Not issuing licenses at all is not discrimination against any one class. It is not willy nilly selectively based on personal preferences. It is failure to perform the duties of her office. It does not invoke Federal jurisdiction for discrimination. It can bring impeachment.
Only when it is someone, or an entity that is defying the Fed. OTH, Feds are free to do whatever they want. After all, who is going to stop them? Kinda like what the Founding Fathers experienced with King George, and soldiers/agents of the British Crown. Si vis pacem, para bellum
We can only hope... The world would be a much better place if that happened... 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? 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?
They only have the EXACT SAME RIGHTS. Besides wanting to re-phrase your opening salvo, YES homosexuals DO have "rights" that the rest of us don't. There are indeed special laws that SPECIFICALLY and ADDITIONALLY apply ONLY to and on behalf of homosexuals...like "Hate Speech" and "Hate Crimes." These same laws also apply to so-called "minorities." This specially and un-equally created law enforcement confers an altogether different and preferential status for ALL homosexuals, as well as for minorities. The point and facts aren't even up for debate so save it.
All are equal, but some are more equal than others. An unelected, anonymous group can approve the targeted killing of an American citizen without due process or any charge being brought. Torture is legal if they call it enhanced interrogation. John Adams gave the Constitution a wipe. Abraham Lincoln took a four year dump on it.
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.
Fuck you buckeroo. The constitution says no religious test. Someone shouldn't have to quit their job because of some piece of shit who DECIDED TO BE FAGGOT OR DYKE! I wouodn't shed a tear if someone went and took a 2x4 to any and all queers who think they can marry the same sex. People who supportr Faggots aren't going to be posting here much longer. People who argue with me about it aren't going to be here much longer.
Aids is lookinmg for them. They can't hide forever.
You said it is ok to kill slave masters. Jesus said it isn't ok to do that. Doies thqt make you a christian hypocrite?
I think I'll recommend you be reinstated on Freedom4um.com Do you approve? Or will you censor this comment also?
Do you approve? Or will you censor this comment also? Christine would never do that. I'm not to interested either. But thank you for the offer.
"The Christian religion, which orders men to love one another, no doubt wants the best political laws and the best civil laws for each people, because those laws are, after [religion], the greatest good that men can give and receive..." Montesquieu understood the inherently selfish nature of man, and that, opportunity provided, one would accumulate power and become a despot. He introduced the revolutionary idea of separating the powers of a monarch into judicial, legislative and executive bodies which would jealously pull against each other, allowing power to check power. Montesquieu wrote: "Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separated from legislative power and from executive power. If it were joined to legislative power, the power over life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislator. If it were joined to executive power, the judge could have the force of an oppressor. All would be lost if the same...body of principal men...exercised these three powers." [...] "I have always respected religion; the morality of the Gospel is the noblest gift ever bestowed by God on man. [...] The principles of Christianity, deeply engraved on the heart, would be infinitely more powerful than the false honor of monarchies, than the humane virtues of republics, or the servile fear of despotic states. It is the Christian religion that, in spite of the extent of empire and the influence of climate, has hindered despotic power ... [...] The Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the Gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty.... [...] A moderate Government is most agreeable to the Christian Religion, and a despotic Government to the Mahommedan.... While the Mahommedan princes incessantly give or receive death, the religion of the Christians renders their princes...less cruel. The prince confides in his subjects, and the subjects in the prince. How admirable the religion which, while it only seems to have in view the felicity of the other life, continues the happiness of this! [...]" http://myemail.constantcontact.com/FEB--10---Montesquieu--Christian-religion---has-hindered-despotic-power-.html?soid=1108762609255&aid=fwuABvnCpFE
That is correct. and she is performing that test, isn't she?
Not if the Jew works for any government entity.
If SCOTUS declared all butchers must serve pork, a Jewish butcher has a right to refuse. Not if the Jew works for any government entity. A more real, and more frequently occurring situation is that of the military man who has a moment of spiritual clarity regarding war DURING a war. He can no longer continue to carry a gun and kill for his cause, because he recognizes that his cause is wrong spiritually - offensive to God - evil. What options does he have? In America, two: continue to serve, or be jailed. If he continues to serve but then won't fire his weapon in combat, he can be tried and even executed for cowardice before the enemy. We impose a religious test on the military: once you're in, you cannot change your mind, even if God appears to you and commands it. So, your CHOICE is to commit evil in service of the government, or to refuse to and have the evil inflicted upon you by the government. The only correct answer is for the government to never become involved in wrongful wars or uses of force anywhere. But there is no mechanism for imposing goodness on the nation, so the government routinely does evil by force. Given that, the man of God must avoid government service in the first place, because government, or at any rate American government, is a proven, known evil. But when we're young, we don't see that and don't realize it. The usual case, as with Ms. Davis in the civil sense, is that we work for the government because we need jobs and income, and then the government begins to ratchet up the evil. We must not deceive ourselves that American government is not evil. Clearly it is, and it clearly always has been. But it is difficult to see that young, and it's difficult to accept it at any age because it's heartbreaking. We would all prefer to lie to ourselves and say "it's not that bad", and then to make the illicit comparison to other bad governments and pretend that because many of them are worse, ours is therefore good. The demands of Hinduism are less shocking of the conscience than the demands of Islam. Shall we, therefore, say that Hinduism is a good and viable option for spirituality because Islam is bad? No. We must adhere to the truth and acknowledge that the One God has a Son, and his Son revealed the path for all. Nothing less will do. The same is true when it comes to violent evil. That Communist China is worse than America does not justify America's evils in the slightest. It's even one of the commandments: do not plead the evil of others as justification for your own. So, what is the solution for the military man who finds himself in service already and realizes that what he is doing is wrong? Any way he goes, there is evil, either by him or for him. And he may well reap the rewards of having participated in such evil long after he has left the service. I know I do, and always will. People value the military experience and the credential. THEY think it is a very good thing, even though it is in point of fact NOT a truly GOOD thing at all. There is no good answer to the conundrum. What it does is force us to face the reality of a world polluted by evil, in which we do not call the shots, and in which the law does not truly protect us. When World War I was declared and the draft began, the first draft resisters were some Quakers in the Midwest. Know what happened to them? They were arrested by the authorities and thrown into jail. And then in jail, they were beaten and starved, and denied medical treatment. Ultimately, they died. The United States handled peaceful Christian recusal from war by beating and starving the men to death in prison. There is no mercy or compassion for Christian scruples among pagans, because pagans in their true hearts hate Christ, hate God, and love the idea of their state and its law being more important than God. They love using the power of the state to force Christians to compromise, to force Christians to bend the knee and serve Caesar and to admit that, when it comes right down to it, they want to preserve their own lives more than they are willing to be martyrs for God. By breaking Christians by force and forcing them to bend the knee to the state, they are forcing men to serve Satan. Because there is a great deal of Satan in the government of the United States of America: abortion, gay marriage, aggressive warfare, unrelenting economic corruption. You cannot serve both God and mammon. Davis and the rest of us are learning that you cannot serve God and the United States of America. The real answer to it is hard and requires courage that doesn't exist, because Christians are and have always been of divided mind It is hard to forego temporal advantage. The only antidote to that is to actually trust what God promised in the law: if Christians actually FOLLOW the economic law, they will be supporting each other economically, and the Christian "club" will become exceedingly rich relative to those outside of it. By preferring one another in business, and by not charging one another interest, and by forgiving each others errors and offenses and supporting each other, the Christian element of society would emerge with far less debt, far less unemployment, far fewer NEEDS, far fewer illnesses - within the walls of their "club". The Jews have done this for centuries, and it is WHY the Jews emerge on top everywhere unless they are killed. They favor one another in all things, just as God's Law requires of them. And by doing so, they create an economic space for themselves in which they have the advantage of being able to get easy capital, and easy cooperation and trust. Christians are supposed to do that, but we don't. Instead, we rely on uniform laws of the state to try to make a "fair" playing field. But the state is evil and always has been, so the rules of the state end up forcing Christians to kneel to Satan and not get the hoped-for benefits. There has always been a way out for Christians. They just have to do what they are supposed to. Unfortunately, for the military man whose eyes are opened once he is already in Satan's service, there is no easy way out. Does he destroy himself at once by seeking an exit when there is none? Or does he bide his time and continue to serve Satan until he can escape? Once he has escaped, does he continue to accept the advantages of having served Satan? There is no good answer. The answer most pick is to continue to serve Satan, and to never give up an economic benefit, and to rely on God to pardon the acts taken from necessity. God probably WILL pardon all of that too - but just as men have to acknowledge Jesus as Lord, men DO have to acknowledge the truth. Any man who stands up and bellows about the GOODNESS of America and the RIGHTEOUSNESS of our evil wars is not repentant at all. Can Davis serve God and give out marriage licenses for gays? Yes. By recognizing what marriage really is, and understanding that she's not really giving out actual MARRIAGE licenses at all. That's just what the state calls these things, pretending to have sovereignty over marriage. In fact, all she is doing is selling a "tax deduction certificate" for people who have entered into a certain contract. That's it. The state has purloined the religious language, but that does not mean that the state has really changed anything. Consdier: there is a man in an insane asylum who asserts he is God. He is helpless and requires nurses to care for him, clean him and feed him. He raves all day, and when they clean and feed him, he gives them his direct blessings, as "God". He thanks them for serving God. Obviously he is not God. So, by serving him, are the nurses breaking the commandment against serving any god but God alone? No. Just because the guy CALLS himself God doesn't mean that he is any sort of god. He is a deluded crazy man who needs help, and they are helping him. His own word labels don't change anything. They are serving God, the real one, by serving him, because he is a very sick man. His OWN labelling of himself as God literally means nothing at all to GOD. It just means he is crazy. Likewise, the state calls it a marriage license and gives it to gays and straights. It is not a marriage license. It has nothing to do with real marriage. It's a tax deduction certificate and a state license to get survivor benefits. Nothing more. Issuing it is not breaking any commandment. It is not serving Satan - not if the person selling the certificate for the state and collecting the fee understands that this really has nothing to do with marriage at all, even though the state has put the word "marriage" on it. The state has no power to change the laws of God. By correct understanding of God's law, Davis can fulfill her duties and keep her job...or could have before she took her current stance. Unfortunately the soldier doesn't have the same option, because shooting a man in the head is killing. There's not mental sidestep and clarity about that one. There is still perhaps a way out of some of the guilt for the soldier who comes to his senses once he's in Satan's service, but this has already gone long so I won't go through that now.
LOL, it takes time to gear up for something like that... Guess you aren't very familiar with what the House and Senate do/did. They are what kept the US from getting ready to help out in the war against Germany. In fact they passed legislature that declared we would not sell arms to anyone participating in the war or the actions leading up to it!!! (Which ended up being ignored). Now before you say they were only doing what the American public as a whole wanted well then you better think again, especially when you see what is currently going on and they have a 80 some percent disapproval rate from the American public!!! Then I guess you are saying it is very heroic to be stupid and ignore what Hitler was doing as soon as he became Chancellor. Europe could have stood up and said right then to Hitler that ne needs to go back to his room and play nicely like a good little boy. But no instead the sheeple mentality won out and you suffered greatly for it. (Which by the way means it isn't Americas fault the war started)!!! Roosevelt quietly started expanding the Army and AAC in early 1939, he seen the writing on the wall. I have no doubt these actions are what caused the House and Senate to pass the legislation they passed trying to deny help to Europe. Then after Poland was attacked the House and Senate somewhat pull it's collective head out of it's ass and realized we would end up being involved whether they liked it or not, so they started the draft and mobilizing in mid 1940... Ahhh yes declaring war on someone when you aren't totally ready is a real winner. Just ask Hitler where it got him by doing that numerous time, the big dirt nap and a destroyed country... One moment you curse Hitler and the next you admire him, what a dope... Oooo they passed legislation. Britain, France, Canada - they were actually FIGHTING THE NAZIS. The Americans never declared war on them.
And depending on the tax bracket, that isn't much at all. I want to point out that if I work for an employer and I find his/her sense of ethics incorrect, I would look for another job post haste. That is exactly what Davis should have performed, if she had convictions to solid principles. Instead, she begs to play a false martyr. She receives a paycheck from the government to perfoom her duties as required by law and to fulfil the roles and responsibilities of her job description. And she doesn't like what she is tasked to do so she makes up her own rules. She is a bad as the US government; in your words, she is a satan.
And so were some Americans who enlisted in those and other countries militaries to fight the Nazis, and Japanese for that matter... If you want to blame America for what happened in Europe go for it. Just be sure to put the blame where it belongs, on those that stalled so long before deciding to help... And keep putting the blame on them for wanting to make this country more like Europe, even though the rest of the people in this country seem to know better than to go down that failed path... You know I just had a funny thought. I wouldn't be afraid to say that a lot of the Americans who went to Europe to help save your bacon were originally from Europe. Or were a descendant of someone from there that had left because of religious persecution and/or lack of opportunities to better themselves... (Talk about unselfish)... And then there are people like you who want to drag us back down to your level, tsk, tsk, tsk... They worship State. Romans before Constantine worshipped Emperor as god. Christians refused so they were persecuted. That is why state worshippers hate Constantine.
Sounds a whole lot like Obunghole, Congress, and a lot of Judges. Why is it that all those that want to come down on her so hard, are all so silent about Obunghole, Congress, a lot of Judges, and city officials that operate sanctuary cities, and those that ignore selling baby body parts, and seem to show no appetite to impeach them with the same vigor? Hypocritical, is it not? Si vis pacem, para bellum
Incorrect. The government has put a religious test in place. You have to renounce your faith to work for the government in some instances and more to come later. Also a violaton of the first amendment. You are an apparent enemy of the constitution.
She receives a paycheck from the government, correct? She must abide by the government rules.
The government has no right to put a religious test in place. They have no right to violate her first amendment rights. Fags have no right to get married. No faggots or dykes are married. Because it is a lie. Death to all queers who think they are married.
Oh BTW before I forget who was it that kept the Russian hordes from pouring thru the Fulda Gap all those years??? Need a hint? (It wasn't the French)... Oh BTW before I forget who was it that kept the Russian hordes from pouring thru the Fulda Gap all those years??? Need a hint? (It wasn't the French)... CZ82 posted I spent many 'happy' days up near the gap (at Hoenfels) with the 502nd... --- Hoping we would soon return to Munich, that is...
Nuclear weapons. The Americans have them. The British have them. The French have them And the Russian nukes kept the West from rescuing Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, Nuclear weapons end conventional war between nuclear powers. The Americans spent a fortune on conventional forces that exceeded anything really needed. Nuclear weapons were always what kept the peace, and still do. If the Americans left, the French and British nuclear deterrent is sufficient to keep the Russians out.
Believe me, I was there in '56, and it was the overwhelming strength of Russian armored forces that stopped us from a Hungarian rescue. Thanks to that evil leader in DC, Ike, our evil empire was stopped from starting WW III...
I am not interested in "blaming America for what happened in Europe". My point is that America is not "good". It is simply another Gentile country, a big one, that is filled with much evil and that has been doing evil since its beginning. Christianity has dramatically weakened itself by yoking it together with various Gentile nation states, which ends up rendering Christianity hypocrtical, because Gentile states are ungodly by their fundamental nature. Then Christians end up paralyzed because they add all sorts of worthless - at best - and frequently quite evil - national traditions on top of the already demanding Law of God. Men have a great deal of difficulty just obeying God's Law - or recognizing and admitting they've broken it so they can repent of their errors. When men load national traditions and pride on top the the burden of sin they already have, it blinds them and makes them unable to even admit of sin and repent, when the sin is done in the service of their national states and traditions. Paul gave us the rule: there is neither Greek nor Jew, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. That MEANS that the excessive devotion to evil Gentile states is ITSELF an evil. If Christians are killing other Christians out of loyalty to some ethnic national state, the Christians on all sides have lost their way. Nation states are nothing. Nothing. They rise. They fall. They are always evil. They are not made by God. Christians must ALWAYS be more loyal to God, and to other Christians, than to their governments or nation states. But Christians have been seduced by the appeal of nationalism into serving nationalist ideals over serving God by being the brothers of other Christians. This is fatal to Christianity. Christians owe their first loyalty to God, and when forced to choose between Christians and their nation states, Christians need to kill their nation states and topple their governments rather than kill other Christians. England, France, Germany, America and Russia never had any business going to war with each other in the first place: they are all full of Christians. That they all did so many times merely demonstrates how weak Christianity is, and how fundamentally lost Christians are. God first, Christian brotherhood. And that frankly doesn't leave ANY room for the nation state. Certainly there's no room for Christians to kill Christians in the name of some evil, perishable government. And American government is just another evil, perishable government.
I can accept that. in 1956, the Russian nuclear forces were not strong enough. The sheer power of the Soviet Army was strong enough to stop us. By 1968 they were.
Ike wasn't so bad. He got us out of Korea. He didn't get us into Vietnam. He preserved the New Deal. He warned of the military-industrial complex. And he appointed the Supreme Court that began desegregation. Ike had a pretty good record, all in all. If all American Presidents acted like him, America would be one of the good gentile nations.
The new deal is slavery. So you should have killed FDR.
Believe me, I was there in '56, and it was the overwhelming strength of Russian armored forces that stopped us from a Hungarian rescue. Thanks to that evil leader in DC, Ike, our evil empire was stopped from starting WW III... So you're backpedaling from yesterdays rant that the USA is evil incarnate? -- Good for you, -- and take a few more days off from hitting the sauce.
The New Deal is not slavery. At all. Social Security and Unemployment Benefits are the necessary forms of support in an industrialized society.
No, I'm not backpedalling from anything. Never do. All Gentile nations are evil. The US has been pretty terrible over it's lifespan. Christians cannot get themselves ensnared in trying to justify some nationalist ideal Just living up to God's law is hard enough.
It is unchristian to think that the fruits of your labor are someone elses. It is also unchristian to think that it is ok to kill slave masters.
God's Law prescribes death for those who steal and sell men. Slavers steal and sell men. They are liable for death under the law. Perhaps they should be showed mercy, but it is just as licit to kill a slaver as it is to kill somebody who is threatening to rape a girl. In fact, because virtually all female slaves of any decent appearance were routinely raped, to kill a slaver IS to kill a rapist, in just about every case. God's law imposed mandatory taxes amounting to well over 10% (the tithe PLUS the first fruits, PLUS the offerings or redemptions of all first born, PLUS the temple tax, PLUS the festival costs. God's taxes amounted to about 23% of income, in totum. It is not unjustly stealing the fruits of labor to have mandatory contributions for social welfare. God's Law establishes those things.
I was there in '56, and it was the overwhelming strength of Russian armored forces that stopped us from a Hungarian rescue. Thanks to that evil leader in DC, Ike, our evil empire was stopped from starting WW III... So you're backpedaling from yesterdays rant that the USA is evil incarnate? -- Good for you, -- and take a few more days off from hitting the sauce. Well if you're not backpedaling, you're either speaking with a forked tongue, or you're tippling again.. You must think you're clever enough to take any position at any time, and pull it off. Dream on..
I'm actually taking the same position over and over again. And pretty clearly too. You're just not grasping it. I shall try again: man's one true allegiance is to God. God, then, imposes duties on us: to take care of our spouses and our children and our parents, and to care for our neighbors. He provides economic, sexual and criminal laws whereby this care is to be exercised. And that is all that men need. Nation states are latter-day arrivals that seek to usurp the authority of God over men, and to replace God's law. Men do not owe allegiance to nation states.
So how many of those people have you voted for? Me personally none!!! Really? Then what keeps Russia from doing a preemptive strike and destroying all their nukes?? The Russians wouldn't mind in the least sending their troops into areas that have been nuked. They are like every other European nation they have plenty of "disposable" people to do their dirty work for them. (That's why they keep the unemployment rate at 10% to ensure a adequate supply of disposable bodies)!! And I bet you think the VA is bad... Ain't that the truth, hence the long screeds... Ain't that the truth, hence the long screeds... And I wonder how many of those conversations/debates he's had that he thinks he's won cause the other person just shook their head and stopped replying??? --- Hoping we would soon return to Munich, that is... So you were with the 11th Airborne?? I spent many 'happy' days up near the gap (at Hohenfels) with the 502nd... --- Hoping we would soon return to Munich, that is... Yep, I spent two years (56/57) at Warner Kaserne. Great duty.. Did you know anyone in the 11th?
Not real sure but I don't think so. I think both of the guys I know from that era were from armored units... Davis has said her deeply held Christian beliefs don't let her endorse gay marriages.
#2. To: redleghunter (#1)
(Edited)
I also know this gay couple could go to another county and get a license.
#3. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL and (#2)
redleghunter (#1) (Edited) --- I also know this gay couple could go to another county and get a license. So why push someone to do something against their convictions?
Vicomte -- They are doing it on principle, and they will certainly win too. -- - The woman is a public official America is a secular, pagan state, with secular pagan laws, one of which is the legality of slaughtering babies in the womb, and another of which is the constitutional requirement to treat gay couples the same as any normal couple when it comes to marriage.
She is an agent of the state. She serves Caesar and takes Caesar's coin. Therefore, she must obey Caesar.
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.
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
She is an agent of the state. She serves Caesar and takes Caesar's coin. Therefore, she must obey Caesar.
#5. To: tpaine (#3)
OR, -- she has the option, and freedom, to fight for her convictions. It's the American way...
#6. To: Pinguinite (#4)
The county voters are her "Ceasar", not any judge.
#7. To: Pinguinite, Y'ALL (#4)
She is an agent of the state. She serves Caesar and takes Caesar's coin. Therefore, she must obey Caesar.
She is not an employee of the state. She is an elected official which to me is key. She is responsible for duties on the authority derived directly from the people of her voting district (county) and it seems to me that any judge that would jail her would violate the separation of powers, undermining the will of the majority of county voters. The county voters are her "Ceasar", not any judge. --- She is committing no crime. If the county voters think she is doing poorly, they can vote her out of office in the next election. That's the "remedy", if one is needed. --- Pinguinite.
Vicomte -- she will be haled into court and fined or jailed from contempt, suspended from her job and ultimately released for it.
#8. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#6)
Pinguinite (#4) -- The county voters are her "Ceasar", not any judge.
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
Marriage is a spiritual union before God, a covenant that God consecrates. The state was permitted to come to that table, but the state has attempted to take over that table.
#10. To: tpaine (#7)
Vicomte -- she will be haled into court and fined or jailed from contempt, suspended from her job and ultimately released for it.
#11. To: tpaine (#8)
Interesting concept --- , that we can prosecute an elected official for refusing to obey an (un)constitutional order.
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
In America, the courts are the final arbiters of disputes. The Courts have spoken, and the Supreme Court has declined a hearing. Therefore, she is acting illegally under American law, and she will be prosecuted and fined for her illegal behavior.
She has violated a court order, and the regular police will enforce the bench warrants that result.
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
A steak dinner, here, now. This woman will comply, or she will be punished and ultimately removed from office.
#14. To: tpaine (#12)
Do you really think the feds will send in forces? -- Nope, it ain't gonna happen.
#15. To: tpaine (#13)
#16. To: tpaine (#12)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#17. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
So, when are you getting out to Connecticut/NYC to buy me my seafood dinner
#18. To: tpaine (#17)
When hell freezes over and your authoritarian dream comes true. --- IF, big if, she is cited for contempt, she will never pay a fine, or serve a day.
#19. To: cranky (#0)
#20. To: redleghunter (#1)
If I remember correctly, county clerks do more than issue marriage licenses.
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#2)
#22. To: Pinguinite (#4)
#23. To: sneakypete (#19)
SHE as a public employee hired to be an agent of the same government...
#24. To: tpaine (#3)
#25. To: Pinguinite (#4)
She is not an employee of the state. She is an elected official which to me is key.
#26. To: tpaine (#7)
#27. To: redleghunter (#9)
#28. To: tpaine (#17)
#29. To: Fred Mertz (#23)
#30. To: sneakypete (#21)
#31. To: sneakypete, Vicomte13 (#27)
Blah,blah,blah,BullBush squared.
#32. To: tpaine (#8)
Interesting concept --- , that we can prosecute an elected official
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#10)
If she continues to defy the orders, she will spend more time in jail. Ultimately either her term will expire or she will be removed by the legislative or executive action of some higher authority in her state.
#34. To: sneakypete (#19)
SHE as a public employee hired to be an agent of the same government that is tasked with the OBLIGATION to treat all citizens equally IS tasked with doing exactly that.
#35. To: sneakypete (#22)
She is committing no crime.
Of course she is. She is not only discriminating against a group of American citizens,she is also violating her oath to serve the public interest as well as denying them their freedom of association.
#36. To: sneakypete (#26)
Elected officials get paid by the state,have state retirement plans,and swear to obey all the laws of the state.
#37. To: cranky (#0)
A 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.
#78. To: sneakypete (#77)
#79. To: Justified (#78)
I thought we would have at least squabbled about something!
#80. To: sneakypete (#79)
Why?
#81. To: Fred Mertz (#74)
Will she still be on the payroll?
#82. To: Justified, sneakypete (#76)
Actually she should be fired.
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.
#83. To: nolu chan, sneakypete (#82)
She can't be fired. She was never hired, she was elected. It does not appear to me that the in-state authorities are in any hurry to remove her from office. It seems issuing gay marriage licenses is not high on their to-do list.
#84. To: nolu chan (#82)
She can't be fired. She was never hired, she was elected. It does not appear to me that the in-state authorities are in any hurry to remove her from office. It seems issuing gay marriage licenses is not high on their to-do list.
#85. To: Pinguinite, Vicomte, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#7)
Pinguinite --- She is not an employee of the state. She is an elected official which to me is key. She is responsible for duties on the authority derived directly from the people of her voting district (county) and it seems to me that any judge that would jail her would violate the separation of powers, undermining the will of the majority of county voters. The county voters are her "Ceasar", not any judge. --- She is committing no crime.
Vicomte -- she will be haled into court and fined or jailed from contempt, suspended from her job and ultimately released for it.
Perhaps you can explain what federal law is being defied? I am unaware of any federal law in regards to marriage licenses since DOMA was struck down by SCOTUS.
Perhaps you can also explain what law SCOTUS has enacted in regards to marriage licenses that is being defied. I was unaware that SCOTUS could enact Federal or State legislation as I understand that it is not part of their Constitutional authority.
#86. To: tpaine (#85)
Perhaps you can explain what federal law is being defied? I am unaware of any federal law in regards to marriage licenses since DOMA was struck down by SCOTUS. Perhaps you can also explain what law SCOTUS has enacted in regards to marriage licenses that is being defied. I was unaware that SCOTUS could enact Federal or State legislation as I understand that it is not part of their Constitutional authority.
#87. To: Fred Mertz, A K A Stone, Vicomte13, Redleghunter, BobCeleste, Sneakypete, All (#45)
" This woman will be crucified in two weeks. Count on it. "
#88. To: Dead Culture Watch, Y'ALL (#86)
#89. To: tpaine (#87)
#90. To: Stoner (#89)
Okaaaay. If we are going to have this situation, I say we go after the President & Congress for the laws they violate or ignore; all the bureaucrats that ignore or violate laws; all of the city officials that operate "sanctuary cities", all the people at Planned Parenthood that sell baby parts, and a lot of other "law breakers". Yes, lets apply the law evenly, and with the same amount of enthusiasm.
#91. To: tpaine (#90)
" dont hold your breath waiting for 'rationale' from the crusifiers "
#92. To: Stoner, Dead Culture Watch, Y'ALL (#91)
Have a good evening!
#93. To: tpaine (#88)
A point that her attorneys should be raising with higher courts.
#94. To: tpaine (#85)
What is her crime? :
#95. To: A Pole (#68)
#96. To: nolu chan (#81)
She refused an agreement to be released if she would authorize subordinates to issue the licenses. It's the same moral question.
#97. To: sneakypete (#79)
I am pro-homosexual
#98. To: Vicomte13 (#93)
Perhaps you can explain what federal law is being defied?
The did. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
#99. To: Stoner (#87)
" This woman will be crucified in two weeks. Count on it. "
#100. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#97)
I am pro-homosexual
#101. To: Fred Mertz (#100)
Sneakypete
#102. To: nolu chan, Fred Mertz (#81)
I admire her standing up for her beliefs, but have no illusion that the Federal government will just give up.
#103. To: GrandIsland (#101)
You are a hero. lol
#104. To: nolu chan, Fred Mertz (#102)
#105. To: SOSO (#102)
but five of her deputies agreed to issue the licenses themselves,
#106. To: A K A Stone (#97)
sneakypete (#79) --- Is it because you believe all that nonsense spouted by A K A Stone that I am pro-homosexual because I insist on ALL Americans being treated equally by the government
#107. To: Fred Mertz (#103)
#108. To: tpaine (#106)
#109. To: Fred Mertz (#108)
Don't call him old pete, he might bite your head off.
#110. To: GrandIsland (#109)
#111. To: Fred Mertz (#108)
Don't call him old pete, he might bite your head off
#112. To: tpaine (#98)
Why do you support that arguably cowardly act?
#113. To: Justified (#80)
Is it because you believe all that nonsense spouted by A K A Stone that I am pro-homosexual because I insist on ALL Americans being treated equally by the government?
#114. To: Vicomte13 (#112)
The did. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
Support it? I think the whole circus is irrelevant.
#115. To: Dead Culture Watch (#84)
The death of a wedge issue is never good for the ruling class.
#116. To: Stoner (#87)
This woman will be crucified in two weeks. Count on it. "
#117. To: sneakypete (#116)
This,like marriage itself,is a STATE issue,not a federal issue.
#118. To: A K A Stone (#96)
They are forcing a religious test on her which is unconstitutional.
#119. To: A K A Stone (#97)
Yes you are sneaky.
#120. To: GrandIsland (#105)
This was inevitable... there is always someone willing to shit on you, for personal gain.
#121. To: Vicomte13 (#112)
The clergy won't marry anybody without the state's license, because that's "against the law" and they don't want to lose their tax exempt status.
#122. To: Fred Mertz (#117)
The feds sent in US Marshals to throw her in the klink.
#123. To: tpaine (#114)
#124. To: sneakypete (#120)
Just out of curiouslty,what do you usually pay for that service?
#125. To: SOSO (#121)
Not likely as most states impose/recognize common law marriage. So in the end it still becomes a civil union.
#126. To: Fred Mertz, Y'ALL (#117)
The feds sent in US Marshals to throw her in the klink.
#127. To: SOSO (#121)
The clergy can conduct a marriage ceremony for anyone.
#128. To: tpaine (#126)
t may be 'time', in the Claire Wolf sense...
#129. To: tpaine (#126)
Who in hell in the executive branch authorized US Marshals to enforce a questionable civil contempt decree from the judicial branch?
#130. To: tpaine (#114)
It's counterintuitive to our basic principles that when a constitutional issue is being raised, that a judge can jail the opposition for contempt..
#131. To: Vicomte13 (#128)
For who? To do what?
#132. To: Stoner (#87)
Okaaaay. If we are going to have this situation, I say we go after the President & Congress for the laws they violate or ignore; all the bureaucrats that ignore or violate laws; all of the city officials that operate "sanctuary cities", all the people at Planned Parenthood that sell baby parts, and a lot of other "law breakers". Yes, lets apply the law evenly, and with the same amount of enthusiasm.
#133. To: Vicomte13 (#130)
Contempt is a matter of equity, not law. When the judge issues and order, he intends to be obeyed. When somebody defies him, he throws that person in jail. There are no further proceedings, or trial, or anything, until the jailed person obeys the judge. That's equity for you. Always has been that way.
#134. To: Justified (#83)
Yes. She should be fired, by the people or be removed from office by local government but not jailed.
Legislative Research Commission, Frankfort, KY
#135. To: tpaine, Pinguinite, Vicomte, nolu chan (#85)
What is her crime?
#136. To: Vicomte13 (#127)
#137. To: tpaine (#133)
Shakespeare was right. First, we should kill all the (fascistic) lawyers...
#138. To: SOSO (#136)
I am sure that there are plenty that will.
#139. To: SOSO (#102)
A defiant county clerk went to jail Thursday for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, but five of her deputies agreed to issue the licenses themselves, potentially ending the church-state standoff in Rowan County, Kentucky.
#140. To: GrandIsland, SOSO (#105)
This was inevitable... there is always someone willing to shit on you, for personal gain.
#141. To: Vicomte13, snekypete (#138)
#142. To: nolu chan (#139)
The deputies could only do it if she authorized them.................
#143. To: nolu chan (#135)
Contempt of court.
CONTEMPTS - 18 U.S.C. § 3691 (2012) §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.
#144. To: nolu chan (#140)
Only Davis has the authority. The deputies cannot act unless Davis delegates to them the authority to do so.
#145. To: Vicomte13 (#112)
Truth is, marriage is defined by God as being between a man and a woman deciding to couple for life, and then having sex.
#146. To: Vicomte13 (#137)
Contempt is a matter of equity, not law. When the judge issues and order, he intends to be obeyed. When somebody defies him, he throws that person in jail. There are no further proceedings, or trial, or anything, until the jailed person obeys the judge. That's equity for you. Always has been that way.
Trouble is, whether it's Shakespeare or Claire Wolf, it's easy to talk about killing, but when it comes down to it, very few are willing to actually do that (thank God).
#147. To: SOSO (#144)
(Edited)
Doesn't that depend on the County's regulations and/or bylaws or equivalent?
Q&A: Why hasn't Ky. clerk been fired in gay marriage license case?
The (Louisville, Ky.) Courier-Journal
8:07 p.m. EDT September 2, 2015
#148. To: nolu chan (#140)
#149. To: nolu chan, GrandIsland (#140)
Only Davis has the authority. The deputies cannot act unless Davis delegates to them the authority to do so.
#150. To: GrandIsland, nolu chan (#148)
What does this clerk do when she's on vacation, calls in sick or is away from the office, delicate authority before she leaves and recinds it when she returns a few thousand times a year?
#151. To: GrandIsland (#148)
What does this clerk do when she's on vacation, calls in sick or is away from the office, delicate authority before she leaves and recinds it when she returns a few thousand times a year?
#152. To: SOSO, GrandIsland (#149)
Perhaps you know the legal basis for how the Clerk can prevent the Deputy Clerks for conducting the legal business of the Office which authority is delegated to the Clerk's Office by the state?
#153. To: SOSO (#150)
That is how many government offices and private corporations work. There must be an official delegation of authority, either statutory or via bylaws or the equivalent, to cover absences of the normally apapropriately delegated person for the conduct of business to be valid. These things are not left to chance.
#154. To: nolu chan (#147)
#155. To: SOSO, GrandIsland (#150)
There must be an official delegation of authority, either statutory or via bylaws or the equivalent, to cover absences of the normally apapropriately delegated person for the conduct of business to be valid.
#156. To: nolu chan, GrandIsland (#152)
The authority is delegated to the elected official, not the general office.
#157. To: GrandIsland (#153)
I'm thinking her deputy clerk and the other clerks decided to stand behind their boss and unite... off the record.
#158. To: SOSO (#154)
She does not own the authority delegated to the office by the state, that belongs to the office not the individual to do with as she pleases.
#159. To: buckeroo (#157)
#160. To: nolu chan (#155)
Authorizing her subordinate a license with her name on it raises the same moral question, and she has declined. Non-elected officials can be fired or suspended and replaced. I don't think the state is fighting what she is doing. Think of this politically if she remains in jail for a few months or more.
#161. To: nolu chan (#158)
It belongs to an elected individual and cannot just be bestowed to an unelected official not holding the office of County Clerk.
#162. To: SOSO (#156)
I believe that you are wrong (see post 149).
#163. To: nolu chan (#162)
If it goes on for a few months, what does the Fed do?
#164. To: SOSO (#161)
Please read the link that I provided you, especially page 74.
Information Bulletin No. 114
Frankfort, KY
August 2014 Chapter 5
Liability For Deputies
Deputy. A substitute; a person duly authorized by an officer to exercise some or all of the functions pertaining to the office, in the place and stead of the latter. One appointed to substitute for another with power to act for him in his name or behalf. A substitute for another and is empowered to act for him in his name and behalf in all matters in which principal may act. Williams v. Ferrentino, Fla.App., 199 So.2d 504, 511.
#165. To: nolu chan (#162)
#166. To: SOSO (#163)
If the duputies issue the licenses as they appear to have agreed to do
#167. To: redleghunter (#165)
I'm thinking the sodomite couple would have found a different jurisdiction to get a license if a Muslim or Jew refused them.
#168. To: sneakypete, tpaine, Vicomte13, redleghunter, Liberator, Don, Stoner, A K A Stone, Justified, SOSO (#116)
This,like marriage itself,is a STATE issue,not a federal issue. It would be a federal issue if the state legislature or Governor decided to bar marriage between homosexuals,but this is just a case of a state employee violating her oath of office because any homosexuals who were refused a marriage license by her were free to go to the next town and get one.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#169. To: tpaine (#146)
Trouble is, whether it's Shakespeare or Claire Wolf, it's easy to talk about killing, but when it comes down to it, very few are willing to actually do that (thank God).
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#170. To: CZ82 (#168)
#171. To: sneakypete (#170)
If she did so,she was lying because she was swearing to God to obey the laws she was taking office to administer.
#172. To: Jameson (#37)
Kim Davis - thrice divorced, is invoking "her" religious beliefs....
#173. To: nolu chan (#147)
#174. To: nolu chan (#162)
" As long as she chooses to sit in jail, and the state does not act to remove her from office, one may view a big middle finger going from Kentucky to Washington, D.C. "
#175. To: CZ82 (#168)
You know I would think that when she took her oath of office she swore to do so with one hand on the Bible and said "So help me God". Which I would think also means she is supposed to support all the covenants that God put forth. (And we all know what the Bible says about homos, it's been discussed many times before on multiple forums). So it would seem to me that she is doing what she took an oath to do when she took office and the Feds are trying to make her break it.
#176. To: Vicomte13 (#137)
" people are apt to suffer wrongs as long as they're sufferable. "
#177. To: CZ82 (#168)
#178. To: tpaine (#146)
Tell that to the millions of men that have died in America's wars, defending our freedoms.
#179. To: CZ82 (#169)
He still hasn't learned that there is a difference between France and America...
#180. To: SOSO (#163)
#181. To: Stoner (#176)
However, if the time comes that those wrongs are no longer sufferable, it will be a different game. And those that have dished out the wrongs, will be in for a shocking surprise.
#182. To: nolu chan (#180)
I have seen no report of how the clerk was authorized to do so, or if he had the authority
#183. To: nolu chan (#180)
see this morning that one of the clerks has issue a license. I have seen no report of how the clerk was authorized to do so, or if he had the authority, why no licenses were issued for the past month or so.
#184. To: Vicomte13 (#182)
He has the authority because nobody will stop him and the courts will recognize the acts, because of the actions of the Clerk in jail.
#185. To: A K A Stone (#172)
She was divorced before she became a christian.
Ephesians 4:
#186. To: Stoner (#173)
What prevents these gays from simply going to the next county and getting a license.
#187. To: sneakypete (#170)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#188. To: nolu chan (#184)
If there was no lawful delegation of authority, the happy couples(s) could find the purported marriage challenged later in Kentucky court.
#189. To: nolu chan (#180)
#190. To: redleghunter (#185)
Now, in the eyes of the Father our past sins are forgiven and washed clean
#191. To: redleghunter (#189)
Is it a possibility another state or county official with the same authority delegated said authority?
#192. To: cranky (#0)
#193. To: Vicomte13 (#181)
" It's never going to happen in white America. "
#194. To: Vicomte13 (#178)
Trouble is, whether it's Shakespeare or Claire Wolf, it's easy to talk about killing, but when it comes down to it, very few are willing to actually do that (thank God).
-- there is nothing exceptional about American soldiers getting killed in a bunch of imperial wars for American expansion and power, and no, those wars were not about American freedom. The Revolution and World War II were about American freedom, ----
#195. To: Vicomte13, liberator, GarySpFc (#190)
Unless the Christian is unforgiving of the sins of others. Then the Father recalls the sins and punishes the Christian using the measure by which the Christian measured.
Hebrews 4:
Acts 3:
Matthew 6:
1 John 2:
John 3:
#196. To: Vicomte13, liberator, GarySpFc (#190)
God's words are clear and repeated, and they are to be taken literally
John 10:
#197. To: redleghunter, SOSO, Vicomte13 (#189)
Is it a possibility another state or county official with the same authority delegated said authority?
Among Davis' deputies, the holdout was her son, Nathan Davis. Yet as the other deputy clerks individually answered Bunning's questions under oath, several had reservations in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, partly based on religion and partly because of worries about their legal authority to sign forms without an elected official's consent.
#198. To: Vicomte13 (#188)
The issue of gay marriage is stare decisis.
#199. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete, y'all (#171)
Now stay the fuck off these threads. We don't need you spreading your pedophile philisophy
#200. To: Vicomte13, liberator, GarySpFc (#190)
The ONLY WAY to be forgiven your sins is by being forgiving and merciful to other men. The Christian who is baptized, loves God and is "saved" and forgiven, but who then is harsh and unforgiving, is judged by the unforgiving standard that he himself has set, and is thrown into the flames at the end. Jesus promised this.
John 17:
Ezekiel 36:
2 Corinthians 13:
#201. To: nolu chan (#198)
The issuance of licenses without the proper authority to do so is not stare decisis that I know of. A federal judge cannot "authorize" a state worker to issue state licenses.
#202. To: nolu chan (#197)
"Oaths mean things."
#203. To: redleghunter (#200)
(Edited)
#204. To: redleghunter (#202)
But she and now every Christian in the US now know that they will be thrown in jail if they refuse an order from the federal government which compromises their conscience.
#205. To: redleghunter, nolu chan (#202)
(Edited)
"Oaths mean things."
#206. To: tpaine (#194)
-- there is nothing exceptional about American soldiers getting killed in a bunch of imperial wars for American expansion and power, and no, those wars were not about American freedom. The Revolution and World War II were about American freedom, ----
#207. To: Stoner (#193)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#208. To: CZ82, Stoner (#207)
I get the distinct impression he thinks white folks are sheep nowadays.
#209. To: SOSO, redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#191)
Go to this link http://www.lrc.ky.gov/lrcpubs/ib114.pdf for more info on the delegation of powers to County Offices in KY. Page 74 has info on Deputies of the Office of Clerk.
Miscellaneous Executive Duties
The county clerk issues marriage licenses (KRS 402.080) and files and records all marriage certificates (KRS 402.220 and 402.230). Military discharges may also be recorded in the county clerk’s office (KRS 422.090). On or before the 10th day of each month, the county clerk reports to the state registrar of vital statistics all marriage licenses issued and all marriage certificates returned (KRS 213.116). Each county clerk must furnish each applicant for a marriage license with a copy of a marriage manual to be prepared and printed by the Human Resources Coordinating Commission of Kentucky (KRS 402.270).
402.240 County judge/executive to issue license in absence of clerk.
Kentucky Revised Statutes
402.005 Definition of marriage.
402.020 Other prohibited marriages.
July 15, 1998
Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 122, sec. 1, effective March 26, 1998 and ch. 258, sec. 2, effective July 15, 1998.
1980 Ky. Acts ch. 396, sec. 124 would have amended this section effective July 1, 1982. However, 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 396 was repealed by 1982 Ky. Acts ch. 141, sec. 146, also effective July 1, 1982. 402.080 Marriage license required
July 13, 1984
Amended 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 279, sec. 1, effective July 13, 1984.
1980 Ky. Acts ch. 74, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1980.
#210. To: Vicomte13 (#208)
#211. To: Vicomte13, SOSO, redleghunter (#201)
Equal Constitutional rights of gays to marry is stare decisis.
Jailed Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Offers 'Remedy' in Same-Sex Marriage License Battle
By ABC NEWS via GOOD MORNING AMERICA
#212. To: nolu chan (#211)
Issuing a state license of any type without state authority to issue it is not stare decisis.
#213. To: nolu chan, redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#209)
The stuff from the cited page 74 is quoted at my 164.
#214. To: redleghunter (#202)
I'm sure she never swore an oath to compromise her religious/faith convictions.
#215. To: Vicomte13 (#212)
If it becomes a means by which the will of the Supreme Court is resisted on the matter, then issuing the license will end up BECOMING stare decisis, because the Court will keep on bulldozing until they achieve compliance with their orders.
#216. To: nolu chan, redleghunter (#214)
I suppose she swore an oath (or affirmed) to faithfully execute the duties of her office, but at a time when said duties did not include condoning same-sex marriage, something her moral standards will not permit her to do.
#217. To: nolu chan, Vicomte13, SOSO, redleghunter (#211)
If the documents indicate they were authorized by County Clerk Kim Davis, it would appear they are fraudulent.
#218. To: nolu chan (#215)
The Fed can bulldoze all it wants and not acquire the authority to issue state licenses.
#219. To: SOSO (#213)
For all of this and what you cite, who do you think will prevail, Davis or the Fed?
#220. To: Stoner (#210)
You never did answer my question in # 193
#221. To: SOSO, redleghunter, Vicomte13 (#213)
For all of this and what you cite, who do you think will prevail, Davis or the Fed?
Do you think any gay marriage under a license issued by a Deputy will be overturned or declared invaild?
What gets Davis out of jail?
When?
How Kim Davis Can Be Released From Jail Without Agreeing to Violate Her Conscience
#222. To: SOSO (#217)
Why would the Judge accept the issuance of the license under the ausices of a Deputy if the Judge know or had serious reason to believe that he was condoning a fraudulent act?
#223. To: nolu chan (#222)
#224. To: SOSO, redleghunter (#216)
I guess it is possible the states can defy the Fed and refuse to issue marriage licenses to gays while they continue to issue such licenses to straights
After the Obergefell ruling, nearly all counties started issuing marriage licenses for same-sex couples. As of 1 August 2015, Irion County is the sole remaining county in the country that overtly refuses to issue licenses to same-sex couples while continuing to license to opposite-sex couples. However, two other counties (Loving, with 82 residents, as of August 7 and Mills as of August 21) also refuse to license same-sex couples, claiming to have delayed implementation while they update paperwork or software. As with similar cases in Kentucky, it is suspected that this may be a tactic to refuse to issue licenses while avoiding lawsuits.
#225. To: SOSO (#223)
IMO he would be in serious legal trouble for doing that.
#226. To: nolu chan (#224)
But it can just stop issuing licenses at all, and not discriminate against any group.
#227. To: Stoner (#193)
" It's never going to happen in white America. "
#228. To: nolu chan (#224)
Or the clerks can issue fraudulent licenses at Federal direction, and the state can invalidate them later.
#229. To: nolu chan, vicomte13, redleghunter, A K A Stone, liberator, GarySpFc, sneakypete, TooConservative, All (#225)
#230. To: SOSO (#229)
We will soon be living in a live in a lawless land under the boot of the Emperor and his thugs in DC. A scoiety in whcih might makes right.
#231. To: A K A Stone (#171)
Now stay the fuck off these threads. We don't need you spreading your pedophile philisophy.
#232. To: Stoner (#173)
What prevents these gays from simply going to the next county and getting a license. Or, having a lawyer draw up an agreement where they will have inheritance rights, etc?
#233. To: CZ82 (#187)
I managed to read your reply before it got "ZOTTED"
#234. To: redleghunter (#189)
Is it a possibility another state or county official with the same authority delegated said authority?
#235. To: Stoner (#192)
I suspect this situation is far from over.
#236. To: tpaine (#199)
Just where was it established that Pete is "spreading -- pedophile philisophy"?
#237. To: redleghunter (#202)
I'm sure she never swore an oath to compromise her religious/faith convictions.
#238. To: sneakypete (#235)
Me,too. She seems to be determined to be a martyr.
#239. To: Vicomte13 (#208)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#240. To: sneakypete (#233)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#241. To: Vicomte13 (#177)
In that Bible Jesus commands Christians to never swear oaths.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#242. To: All (#0)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#243. To: Fred Mertz (#238)
Yeah, I'll bet Las Vegas probably has an over/under betting line by now on how long she'll be in the pokey.
#244. To: CZ82 (#240)
#245. To: CZ82 (#242)
You know it's kinda funny that the women's rights groups haven't gotten involved in this,
#246. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter, GarySpFc (#203)
If you do not follow Jesus, you are not forgiven your sins. If you do not forgive others their trespasses, you are not forgiven your sins.
#247. To: SOSO (#226)
Issing of licenses by the Office Clerk is what the state authorizes and requires that office to do. The Clerk cannot willy nilly based on personal preferences stop issuing licenses to anyone which she knew before she took the job was a function of that office.
#248. To: nolu chan (#222)
" The Fed does not tolerate defiance. "
#249. To: sneakypete (#245)
might make their little heads explode.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#250. To: Vicomte13 (#228)
Or the clerks can issue putatively valid licenses at federal direction, which the state will ratify or lose federal funds and suffer other retaliatory measures.
#251. To: sneakypete, CZ82 (#244)
At the risk of sounding anal,I want to be clear about this. Homosexuals do NOT have any rights that the rest of us don't have.
#252. To: SOSO (#229)
So we are back to where I always been, i.e. - a law is not enforced is de facto not a law.
#253. To: Liberator (#251)
YES 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)
#294. To: buckeroo (#285)
#295. To: redleghunter (#286)
Neal and Bob
#296. To: A K A Stone (#294)
#297. To: CZ82 (#41)
Christian hypocrites
#298. To: A K A Stone (#297)
#299. To: A K A Stone (#297)
#300. To: Fred Mertz (#299)
I think I'll recommend you be reinstated on Freedom4um.com
#301. To: tpaine (#3)
#302. To: A K A Stone (#294)
The constitution says no religious test.
#303. To: redleghunter (#286)
If SCOTUS declared all butchers must serve pork, a Jewish butcher has a right to refuse.
#304. To: buckeroo, redleghunter (#303)
#305. To: Vicomte13 (#289)
immediately
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#306. To: Vicomte13 (#288)
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.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#307. To: Vicomte13 (#288)
It is not heroic to stand by while the free world is butchered and bombed
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#308. To: Vicomte13 (#288)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#309. To: Vicomte13 (#288)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#310. To: CZ82 (#306)
#311. To: Vicomte13, redleghunter (#304)
In fact, all she is doing is selling a "tax deduction certificate" for people who have entered into a certain contract. That's it.
#312. To: Vicomte13 (#310)
(Edited)
Oooo they passed legislation. Britain, France, Canada - they were actually FIGHTING THE NAZIS. The Americans never declared war on them.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#313. To: Vicomte13 (#304)
pagans in their true hearts hate Christ, hate God, and love the idea of their state and its law being more important than God
#314. To: buckeroo (#311)
" And she doesn't like what she is tasked to do so she makes up her own rules "
#315. To: buckeroo (#302)
The constitution says no religious test. That is correct. and she is performing that test, isn't she?
#316. To: A K A Stone (#315)
The government has put a religious test in place.
#317. To: buckeroo (#316)
The government has put a religious test in place. She receives a paycheck from the government, correct? She must abide by the government rules.
#318. To: Vicomte13 (#310)
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#319. To: CZ82, Vicomte, Y'ALL (#318)
#318. To: Vicomte13 (#310)
#320. To: CZ82 (#318)
#321. To: Vicomte13 (#320)
Russian nukes kept the West from rescuing Hungary in 1956 ---
#322. To: CZ82 (#312)
#323. To: tpaine (#321)
#324. To: tpaine (#321)
#325. To: Vicomte13 (#324)
#326. To: Vicomte13 (#324)
Vicomte13 (#320) --- Russian nukes kept the West from rescuing Hungary in 1956 ---
I can accept that. in 1956, the Russian nuclear forces were not strong enough. The sheer power of the Soviet Army was strong enough to stop us. By 1968 they were. ------ Ike wasn't so bad. He got us out of Korea. He didn't get us into Vietnam. He preserved the New Deal. He warned of the military-industrial complex. And he appointed the Supreme Court that began desegregation. Ike had a pretty good record, all in all. If all American Presidents acted like him, America would be one of the good gentile nations.
#327. To: A K A Stone (#325)
#328. To: tpaine (#326)
#329. To: Vicomte13 (#327)
The New Deal is not slavery. At all. Social Security and Unemployment Benefits are the necessary forms of support in an industrialized society.
#330. To: A K A Stone (#329)
#331. To: Vicomte13 (#328)
------ Ike wasn't so bad. He got us out of Korea. He didn't get us into Vietnam. He preserved the New Deal. He warned of the military-industrial complex. And he appointed the Supreme Court that began desegregation. Ike had a pretty good record, all in all. If all American Presidents acted like him, America would be one of the good gentile nations.
No, I'm not backpedalling from anything. Never do. All Gentile nations are evil. The US has been pretty terrible over it's lifespan. Christians cannot get themselves ensnared in trying to justify some nationalist ideal Just living up to God's law is hard enough.
#332. To: tpaine (#331)
#333. To: Vicomte13 (#322)
My point is that America is not "good".
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#334. To: Vicomte13 (#320)
If the Americans left, the French and British nuclear deterrent is sufficient to keep the Russians out.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#335. To: tpaine (#331)
You must think you're clever enough to take any position at any time, and pull it off.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#336. To: tpaine (#331)
You must think you're clever enough to take any position at any time, and pull it off.
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#337. To: tpaine (#319)
I spent many 'happy' days up near the gap (at Hoenfels) with the 502nd...
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
#338. To: CZ82 (#337)
So you were with the 11th Airborne??
#339. To: tpaine (#338)
Did you know anyone in the 11th?
“Let me see which pig "DON'T" I want to vote for, the one with or without lipstick??" Hmmmmm...
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]