No, they overturned all those laws put into place defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman.   If what you say is true, why were any of those laws necessary in the first place?

Of course they were necessary. The call to redefine marriage has been raging for two decades. The writing was on the wall. Eventually the cultural left was going to push for nationwide redefinition of marriage. The SCOTUS ruling proves the necessity of these laws.

 
sounds like every other person we elect

Because marriage is and has been a function of the legislature for the entirety of the existence of the United States...

Wow this lady has my respect.  Pretty smart move.  She chose not to discriminate and stop all license issuing.  Really what it needs to be now that the gov in there infinite wisdom has decided that marriage is defined as whatever is convenient today.

well it will be interesting to see what the people that elected her have to say about that,could be she is representing the people that elected her..



fuck it,the president gets to decide what laws he wants to enforce why not everyone else..



 

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
— Judge Leon M. Bazile, January 6, 1959


"Because of its interpretation of Biblical principles regarding interracial dating, Bob Jones University completely excluded black applicants until 1971, and from 1971 until 1975, admitted black students only if they were married. After 1975, the University began to admit unmarried black applicants, but continued to deny "admission to applicants engaged in an interracial marriage or known to advocate interracial marriage or dating." The University also imposed a disciplinary rule that prohibited interracial dating." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States


"St. Paul referred to the broader meaning of these laws against hybridization, and against yoking an ox and an ass to a plow (Deut. 22:10), in II Corinthians 6:14. . . . Unequal yoking plainly means mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers and is clearly forbidden. But Deuteronomy 22:10 not only forbids unequal religious yoking by inference, and as a case law, but also unequal yoking generally. This means that an unequal marriage between believers or between unbelievers is wrong. Man was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), and woman in the reflected image of God in man, and from man (I Cor. 11:1-12; Gen. 2:18, 21-23). “Helpmeet” means a reflection or mirror, an image of man, indicating that a woman must have something religiously and culturally in common with her husband. The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish." theologian R.J. Rushdoony


"One of them asked him [President Truman] whether integration would lead to intermarriage. "I hope not," Truman retorted. "I don't believe in it. What's the word about four feet long? Miscegenation? The Lord created it that way. You read your Bible, and you'll find out". Pressed further, he asked whether a newspaperman would want his daughter to marry a Negro. "If she loved him," the man answered. "She won't love somebody that's not her color," Truman responded."
Google Books link


etc., etc., etc.

dont worry you will get a license



 

Oh come on. Are you seriously denying that people have used the Bible for 2000 years to enforce their own prejudices?

lol

Standard ARF Operating Procedure: Deny everything, admit nothing.

Not in the slightest. I'm arguing against his specific claim in the quote above mine which you cut out.

Did any of you take basic logic? Good grief!

Ok, so you found some examples from the Jim Crow South. Surprise, surprise. But that's hardly "all of church history" like you claimed.

You'll need to dig deeper. We've been around for over 2000 years, 4000 if you count Israel.

Based on her past this woman is not a good spokesperson to comment and regulate what she feels is the sanctity of marriage.

Paul and Jesus might disagree with me but repenting for something you violated for YEARS in a SERIOUS manner does not allow you to then become the arbitrator of all things you violated so seriously in the past.

THIS 100%

This thread should have had a poll.

So after Sandy Hook, when it seemed like a new assault weapons ban was imminent, and all those sheriffs came out and said "Fuck you! Pass whatever you want but we won't enforce it and if you send agents here to try and enforce then we'll arrest them!", those guys should all be sitting in jail cells and be replaced by people who would follow orders?



Rule of Law is great and all, until the people making the laws go batshit fucking crazy and start trying to redefine the fabric of human civilization. When that happens, someone needs to tell them to go fuck themselves.



 

Social Justice Warrior.



The left's version of the religious right.



People who feel constantly persecuted by everyone.
 

I'm sorry, but please do a little bit of research. It's not like whites and blacks (or Jews [Hi Martin Luther, reformationists], etc.) were holding hands and singing Kumbaya pre-Jim Crow. People used the bible to justify their prejudice, same with many other religions (Hindus and the caste system, etc.). They sincerely believe this too. I know it might be tough to admit, but the Christianity that you believe in where blacks and whites sing songs together and is totally cool with interracial marriage is fairly new. Historically, even the concept of inter-faith marriage was taboo.

Does that include TomJefferson who thinks the cattle cars are coming because people acting on behalf of the state aren't allowed to enforce his religious views [even though that's been the case since at least Loving v. Virginia]?

I wonder if she refused to issue marriage licenses to couples who'd been living in sin?  Maybe only if they repented for their sinful behavior?

In case a bunch of lawyers in robes don't let us oppress the gays?

I don't know, you tell me.

Yay, site staff.





Where's the refund button...



 

Says the man that cites Harry S. Truman as a biblical scholar.  Keep digging I will not stop you.

There aren't any MCC's in her area so she would most likely just be detained in the county jail. Since she has not been sentenced for anything she would not get sent to a regular institution. MCC's are where our pre trial detainees go. They are located in major cities that do the most business.

lol.....Paul persecuted, tortured and killed Christians.....so yeah...God will use even the worst of us.

Paul repented and said the torture and killing of Christians was wrong.

I don't know if God would think a person who abused the sanctity of marriage so BADLY was now a good person to say who can or cannot get married.

States' rights, like Illinois and its gun laws.

Chicago can ban handguns, right?

The Constitution is pretty clear on the issue of Illinois and its gun laws.

So you're telling me the constitution doesn't say that the right of gays to keep and bear marriage licenses shall not be infringed?

Not that I can recall.

Nope. You made the assertion; let us see you defend it.

And that's ignoring the fallacy that just because a "religion" or other organized system of beliefs was or is used to justify reprehensible things invalidates those beliefs. If that were the case, the modern religion of secular humanism would be long ago invalidated. Anyone can co-opt a religion's teachings to justify their prejudices, etc. It comes down to what is ultimately true. You DO believe there is an absolute truth, right?

(Hint: It's mentioned extensively in the Declaration of Independence and ultimately forms the basis for that document.)

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/paul-backs-clerk-gay-marriage-firing
I'll stand with Rand on this
Accommodation can be made for all involved, if this is really about getting married and not shoving an agenda down the throat of the Christians

And under the heading of "Unintended Consequences" there's this
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2015/sep/03/judge-declines-divorce-case-citing-gay-marria/323201/
If th Feds take marriage away from the states to define then they must define divorce as well

I don't think anyone has appointed her as a spokesperson.
The government is certainly using her as an example. If you don't accept the agenda you will be jailed.

Soon enough people will get the message and we will all be able to move on to the next  liberation struggle - whatever that may be.  

In my opinion, if she is using the word of God, or the Holy Christian Bible as her guide and standard as a reason for her actions, then she is essentially doing so using God's authority according to the decision as it has been made by her to resist.
This is what some Christians believe.
I believe that she is doing the right thing, or at least believe that her motivation is in the right place..
Some don't do these things, calling attention according to what the Bible has to say because they loath or hate homosexuals or anyone.
They do it because they are simply following what the word of God has to say as a command to all believers.
Many however, disagree with this process, but at least we all still have the right to say what is on our minds about many subjects and issues, not just the controversial ones
that seem to bring conflict and misunderstanding sometimes.
I believe that we all should feel somewhat grateful about that.

Then there is NO difference.

Both are making up their own rules and ignoring the law.

According to an article online, she's a registered democrat.


If true, I love it.

If murder were made legal or something just as ridiculous because of absurd political considerations and bribery, then would you kill?

It already is, it's called abortion. And the leftist's love abortion just as much as gay marriage.

I think we can give her a pass on the democrap alliance. I salute her for taking a moral stand against state sponsored depravity. Marriage is the Union of man and woman, period.

The Bible states that it only take one generation (approx. 40 years) to throw the teachings and precepts of the word of God behind their backs as a nation.
Then the decline of that nation will come in the form of God's judgment against it.
I have seen this as truth according to the usual invasions which take place after decline, which I believe are already set in places from several sources in America currently, as many already know about these threats, not just Christians and these are the facts.
These are the Biblical truths currently as we understand them about what is going on with our own country.
Some feel a need to become active about these issues.
If so, then I applaud her in her actions.
There is a much bigger picture here according to unjust laws, than many care to address or analyze.

I'm citing him as using the bible as justification. Try reading again [I know it's difficult for you].

"One of them asked him [President Truman] whether integration would lead to intermarriage. "I hope not," Truman retorted. "I don't believe in it. What's the word about four feet long? Miscegenation? The Lord created it that way. You read your Bible, and you'll find out". Pressed further, he asked whether a newspaperman would want his daughter to marry a Negro. "If she loved him," the man answered. "She won't love somebody that's not her color," Truman responded."
Google books link

Should've told all the people in Aushwitz that they were free to leave at anytime, like Kim Davis is.

Speaking of the Holocaust, maybe people should look into how exactly Europe and pretty much the whole world didn't give two shits about Jews and the history of Christian anti-Semitism. No, it was not the only motivating factor but it definitely played a part.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism#Church_Fathers

Again, there's more but people actually need to do a little bit of research.

People have nouveau-Christianity now.

The recent Supreme Court ruling, written by Kennedy (1 man) and supported by 4 other Supreme Court Judges (5 people in total) which swept aside over a century in SCOTUS jurisprudence on the matter, disproves my statement?

I suppose Wickard v. Filburn disproves the notion that the Congress is limited only to those powers enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 due to the so-called Interstate Commerce Clause.  (This jurisprudence still stands today)

I suppose Plessy v. Ferguson disproves the notion that people must be treated equally by Government because "Separate but equal" is A-O.K.. .  (This jurisprudence still stood until 1954 and can be traced back to much of the racial animosity we are seeing today)

I suppose Scott v. Sandford disproves the notions that people of color who were brought into this country as property can ever be real people or anything other than chattel.   (This jurisprudence helped to kick off a Civil War in which 600,000+ Americans were butchered like cattle and every major industrial center in the South was destroyed)

I suppose both Heller and McDonald disprove the notion that your Second Amendment protects your ability to keep and bear arms because both of those cases merely stated you have the right to own a handgun, of some unknown type, in your home and that the states cannot force you to render that handgun inoperable.   (This jurisprudence still stands today and is currently being used to justify the denial of your right to keep and bear arms in many ways)

You keep hanging your hat on ONE opinion written by 5 partisan jurists (whose votes on this matter were certain before the case was even argued); 2 of whom (Kagan and and Sotomayor) have actually engaged in the very lawless behavior you have found to be reprehensible as discussed in this thread.

I would also remind you that 4 of those 5 voted in one or both of Heller and McDonald to say you have no individual right to keep a ****ing HAND GUN in your home and the fifth, Justice Kennedy, appears to have wobbled on that one as well.





Your lovely SCOTUS apparently disagrees with you.  

They had the PERFECT chance to address this issue in Woollard v. Gallagher and the SCOTUS punted the ball allowing Maryland to continue discriminating against their people on concealed carry permits.

So much for logical, legal, or moral consistency.  



SCOTUS disagrees.  




We already had the test case and SCOTUS denied Certiorari.

Where the hell have you been?

Would you like to know how I know you have most likely never read any of the jurisprudence on the 14th amendment prior to Obergefell v. Hodges (a case which I doubt you have even read)?




If that denial was in line with state law, apparently the SCOTUS thinks that would be O.k.

SCOTUS denied Certiorari for Woollard v. Gallagher.    Go read up on that case.



SSI and the Income tax are legal as per the 16th Amendment.   Social Security is a TAX (excise tax) as was argued before the SCOTUS (Helvering v. Davis).

Unlike marriage, the people of this country actually voted for an income tax (16th Amendment).

If you can convince a majority of Americans to vote for that stupidity surely you could have convinced them to amend the constitution to allow for same-sex marriage.    No, no, no; let's not bother with that otudated and antiquated system of government when we have FIVE men and women willing to do so on the SCOTUS.

As for you not wanting a government at any level involved with "personal relationships", I have bad news for you:  that is exactly what you have and it is not going any where.




You appear to be one of those people.    

We're going to find out whether that still applies relatively soon.

Amen.  

Where in Heller did the dissenting opinion state that the majority were over stepping their authority,
making laws rather than interpreting them, and destroying the rule of law in this country?