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: 36107
Comments: 339
A county clerk in Kentucky has again refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, invoking her religious beliefs and "God's authority" - this time in defiance of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling against her. On Tuesday morning, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis' office denied the licenses to at least two couples. At first, Davis was in her office with the door closed and blinds drawn. But she emerged a few minutes later, telling the couples and the activists gathered there that her office is continuing to deny the licenses "under God's authority." The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in the case, leaving Davis no legal grounds to refuse to grant the licenses. A district judge could now hold her in contempt of court, which can carry steep fines or jail time. As an elected official, Davis can't be fired. Davis asked David Moore and David Ermold to leave her office after they were denied a license Tuesday morning - the couple's fourth rejection. They refused, surrounded by reporters and cameras. "We're not leaving until we have a license," Ermold said. "Then you're going to have a long day," Davis told him. From the back of the room, Davis' supporters said: "Praise the Lord! ... Stand your ground." Other activists shouted that Davis is a bigot and told her: "Do your job." Davis has said her deeply held Christian beliefs don't let her endorse gay marriages. She stopped issuing all marriage licenses in the days after the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage across the nation. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued her, arguing that she must fulfill her duties as an elected official despite her personal religious faith. A federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses, and an appeals court upheld that decision. Her lawyers with the Liberty Counsel filed a last-ditch appeal to the Supreme Court on Friday, asking that they grant her "asylum for her conscience." Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees the 6th district, referred Davis' request to the full court, which denied the stay without comment. After Tuesday's denials, the rejected couples' supporters called the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit on their behalf. They asked that the attorneys file that day to have Davis held in contempt. Shortly after Davis' remarks in her office, the sheriff's office cleared the room and building of those gathered to support both sides of the issue. The two groups lined up on the lawn, on either side of the courthouse entrance to chant at each other. Davis' supporters have told her to "stand firm," while gay-rights activists shouted "do your job." Randy Smith, leading the group supporting Davis, said he knows following their instruction to "stand firm" might mean Davis goes to jail. "But at the end of the day, we have to stand before God, which has higher authority than the Supreme Court," he said. Ermold hugged Moore, his partner of 17 years, and they cried and swayed as they left the clerk's office. Davis' supporters marched by, chanting. "I feel sad, I feel devastated," Ermold said. "I feel like I've been humiliated on such a national level, I can't even comprehend it." 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-229) not displayed.
.
.
.
#230. To: SOSO (#229)
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.
Comments (270 - 339) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWe 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.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]