User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:16:04 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The law in the state passed by the legislature in 2004 that is still on the books states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Supreme Court isn't in the business of legislating. They can claim that the current law is unconstitutional, but they certainly can't write a new law that says in kentucky marriage can be between a man and another man or a woman and another woman, etc. So, she's not breaking the law, as the current law in KY. Am I wrong? You got it right |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:16:47 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't agree with her theologically, but I agree with her politically. Civil disobedience can be a powerful political tool and more power to her for taking that route. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't know why they just don't fire her. No reason to send her to jail. This whole thing is disgusting and a mockery of justice. Gavin Newsome didn't receive this treatment when he pretty much did the same thing by handing out sodomite marriage licenses when that was illegal. I believe she is an elected official. Not sure how you go about firing someone like that. She can't be fired. She is an elected official. She can be removed from office, but the state legislature needs to vote on that. This is complicated because many in the legislature share her belief. Also, they don't meet again until January. She did take an oath. She has violated that oath. No belief system saves you from breaking that oath. That is why she has been sent to jail. She is not adhering to the oath of office. She could resign but as she was quoted in USA Today she said that God is speaking to her and using her to uphold His word and commands. I hope all of this helps the conversation... I don't agree with her theologically, but I agree with her politically. Civil disobedience can be a powerful political tool and more power to her for taking that route. Yeah more power to her. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:17:52 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK - let me get this straight. You guys feel like a person who works for the government should uphold the law. That is the law therefore people should follow it, and be held accountable. So, next year when the SCOTUS makes guns illegal - you will follow the law (just like she should) and you will want all government employees to follow the law and confiscate your guns? Apparently you have decided you like "Gay" laws so those should be enforced but if they outlaw guns - well those laws should not be followed. Pick one gents. You can't have it both ways. SCOTUS cannot make law. 8th grade civics. May I recommend the online course from Hillsdale College Constitution 101. https://online.hillsdale.edu/course/con101/schedule |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:24:56 PM EDT
[#4]
You bible thumpers need to get it through your thick skulls that STATE marriages have NOTHING todo with BIBLICAL marriages. It would be a against the the constitution if they did.
I know the hoops I had to jump through to get married in a Catholic Church. I didn't have to do any of that for a marriage license. Marriage License is a legal piece of paper. Marriage in a church is a biblical marriage between two people and God. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:26:42 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You bible thumpers need to get it through your thick skulls that STATE marriages have NOTHING todo with BIBLICAL marriages. It would be a against the the constitution if they did. I know the hoops I had to jump through to get married in a Catholic Church. I didn't have to do any of that for a marriage license. Marriage License is a legal piece of paper. Marriage in a church is a biblical marriage between two people and God. Civil disobedience is political tool used for political ends. This is a brilliant move in the culture war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2015 11:48:20 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Civil disobedience is political tool used for political ends. This is a brilliant move in the culture war. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You bible thumpers need to get it through your thick skulls that STATE marriages have NOTHING todo with BIBLICAL marriages. It would be a against the the constitution if they did. I know the hoops I had to jump through to get married in a Catholic Church. I didn't have to do any of that for a marriage license. Marriage License is a legal piece of paper. Marriage in a church is a biblical marriage between two people and God. Civil disobedience is political tool used for political ends. This is a brilliant move in the culture war. LOL. Culture War? Leave the drama to the drag queens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:33:19 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hammermill thread. Who the biggest post whore here...HAMMERMILL! Who stirs up all the shit here...HAMMERMILL! DU DU DU DU HAMMERMILL! HAMMERMILL HAMMERMILL HAMMMERMILL! yay.  Speaking of hammers.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 12:35:28 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The last sentence, she needs to be familiar with the phrase "Separation of church and state" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://billygraham.org/decision-magazine/september-2015/kentucky-clerk-on-biblical-marriage-stand-i-cannot-be-separated-from-what-i-believe/ Kentucky’s Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis talked to Decision magazine on Wednesday. A more comprehensive story will appear in the October edition of the magazine.
No amount of threats against her life or her job, no edicts from the U.S. Supreme Court or the governor, could sway Kim Davis to compromise God’s truth. The last sentence, she needs to be familiar with the phrase "Separation of church and state" I'd be interested to see where you find that in the Constitution. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 2:12:42 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd be interested to see where you find that in the Constitution. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://billygraham.org/decision-magazine/september-2015/kentucky-clerk-on-biblical-marriage-stand-i-cannot-be-separated-from-what-i-believe/ Kentucky’s Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis talked to Decision magazine on Wednesday. A more comprehensive story will appear in the October edition of the magazine.
No amount of threats against her life or her job, no edicts from the U.S. Supreme Court or the governor, could sway Kim Davis to compromise God’s truth. The last sentence, she needs to be familiar with the phrase "Separation of church and state" I'd be interested to see where you find that in the Constitution. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Article 3, Section 2. The Constitution is what SCOTUS says it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 2:20:25 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The law in the state passed by the legislature in 2004 that is still on the books states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Supreme Court isn't in the business of legislating. They can claim that the current law is unconstitutional, but they certainly can't write a new law that says in kentucky marriage can be between a man and another man or a woman and another woman, etc. So, she's not breaking the law, as the current law in KY. Am I wrong? You are correct sir. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 2:21:43 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Article 3, Section 2. The Constitution is what SCOTUS says it is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://billygraham.org/decision-magazine/september-2015/kentucky-clerk-on-biblical-marriage-stand-i-cannot-be-separated-from-what-i-believe/ Kentucky’s Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis talked to Decision magazine on Wednesday. A more comprehensive story will appear in the October edition of the magazine.
No amount of threats against her life or her job, no edicts from the U.S. Supreme Court or the governor, could sway Kim Davis to compromise God’s truth. The last sentence, she needs to be familiar with the phrase "Separation of church and state" I'd be interested to see where you find that in the Constitution. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Article 3, Section 2. The Constitution is what SCOTUS says it is. I see what you did there 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 2:25:44 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My only issue with what she is doing is legal. I don't think the Supreme court should hold the power to write state law. They can rule state law unconstitutional, but the state should be forced to legislate, not the court. That said, there is only one fix that the Supreme court would be forced to accept - and that is if the State stopped issuing any marriage licenses. Anybody could marry anyone - but NONE would be recognized by the state as marriage. Pretty sure that would be equal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 2:26:28 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The law in the state passed by the legislature in 2004 that is still on the books states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Supreme Court isn't in the business of legislating. They can claim that the current law is unconstitutional, but they certainly can't write a new law that says in kentucky marriage can be between a man and another man or a woman and another woman, etc. So, she's not breaking the law, as the current law in KY. Am I wrong? When Virginia's anti-miscegenation law got struck down in Loving vs. Virginia, they weren't allowed to just not issue marriage licenses to black and white couples simply because the legislature didn't write a new law in the books. The law in the state passed by the legislature in 2004 is no longer on the books, it can not be enforced. It is a violation of a person's civil rights for a state appointed government official to deny a marriage license just because the other person in the couple is of the same sex. It would be the same as if she said she wouldn't issue a marriage license to a black couple just because of the color of their skin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 2:50:19 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're wrong. When Virginia's anti-miscegenation law got struck down in Loving vs. Virginia, they weren't allowed to just not issue marriage licenses to black and white couples simply because the legislature didn't write a new law in the books. The law in the state passed by the legislature in 2004 is no longer on the books, it can not be enforced. It is a violation of a person's civil rights for a state appointed government official to deny a marriage license just because the other person in the couple is of the same sex. It would be the same as if she said she wouldn't issue a marriage license to a black couple just because of the color of their skin. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The law in the state passed by the legislature in 2004 that is still on the books states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Supreme Court isn't in the business of legislating. They can claim that the current law is unconstitutional, but they certainly can't write a new law that says in kentucky marriage can be between a man and another man or a woman and another woman, etc. So, she's not breaking the law, as the current law in KY. Am I wrong? When Virginia's anti-miscegenation law got struck down in Loving vs. Virginia, they weren't allowed to just not issue marriage licenses to black and white couples simply because the legislature didn't write a new law in the books. The law in the state passed by the legislature in 2004 is no longer on the books, it can not be enforced. It is a violation of a person's civil rights for a state appointed government official to deny a marriage license just because the other person in the couple is of the same sex. It would be the same as if she said she wouldn't issue a marriage license to a black couple just because of the color of their skin. It's like you're channeling Justice Kennedy and he's not even dead - yet(?) Turning on CNN right now....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 4:40:15 AM EDT
[#15]
Does anyone actually know the facts of the case that was in front of the Supreme Court? It wasn't simply a "Should gay marriage be allowed?" yes or no check box.
James Obergefell and John Arthur, a same-sex couple decided to get married to obtain legal recognition of their relationship. They married in Maryland, where it was legal. They moved back to their state of residence, Ohio, which at the time didn't recognize their marriage. One of the partners, John Arthur, was dying from ALS and they wanted the other partner to be listed as the surviving spouse on the death certificate. Ohio refused to do so, as they did not recognize their marriage from another state. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:09:45 AM EDT
[#16]
She is willing to stay in jail
http://www.newser.com/story/212387/kentucky-clerk-willing-to-stay-in-jail-for-months.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=inbox&utm_campaign=newser |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:10:18 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're wrong. When Virginia's anti-miscegenation law got struck down in Loving vs. Virginia, they weren't allowed to just not issue marriage licenses to black and white couples simply because the legislature didn't write a new law in the books. The law in the state passed by the legislature in 2004 is no longer on the books, it can not be enforced. It is a violation of a person's civil rights for a state appointed government official to deny a marriage license just because the other person in the couple is of the same sex. It would be the same as if she said she wouldn't issue a marriage license to a black couple just because of the color of their skin. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The law in the state passed by the legislature in 2004 that is still on the books states that marriage is between a man and a woman. Supreme Court isn't in the business of legislating. They can claim that the current law is unconstitutional, but they certainly can't write a new law that says in kentucky marriage can be between a man and another man or a woman and another woman, etc. So, she's not breaking the law, as the current law in KY. Am I wrong? When Virginia's anti-miscegenation law got struck down in Loving vs. Virginia, they weren't allowed to just not issue marriage licenses to black and white couples simply because the legislature didn't write a new law in the books. The law in the state passed by the legislature in 2004 is no longer on the books, it can not be enforced. It is a violation of a person's civil rights for a state appointed government official to deny a marriage license just because the other person in the couple is of the same sex. It would be the same as if she said she wouldn't issue a marriage license to a black couple just because of the color of their skin. I understand the parallel here. But even in this instance, it would appear the Supreme Court suddenly became a legislative body then. When a law becomes unconstitutional via the SCOTUS, it is no longer law. However that does that mean that it guarantees the outcome without a true legislative body passing a new law? I'm not a civics expert by any means, I'm genuinely curious more than anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:18:21 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mental illness is really sad to watch destroy somebody. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Though she has been under intense attack and pressure, she claims a peace and trust in God that surpasses human understanding.
“We serve a living God who is alive and on the throne,” she said. “He knows exactly where I am, and I know that His hand is upon me and upon His people. He is in full control.” Mental illness is really sad to watch destroy somebody. Only liberals believe crazy shit and want people to think they are normal and above question. I was told that here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 10:37:59 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
She is willing to stay in jail http://www.newser.com/story/212387/kentucky-clerk-willing-to-stay-in-jail-for-months.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=inbox&utm_campaign=newser Does she still hold the position and can issue, or not, marriage licenses while in jail? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2015 11:00:50 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men."" Acts 5:29 I'm surprised that so many on ARFCOM are defending judicial activism. Bunch of progressives. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The last sentence, she needs to be familiar with the phrase "Separation of church and state" Never saw that phrase anywhere in the constitution "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him." Better? "But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men."" Acts 5:29 I'm surprised that so many on ARFCOM are defending judicial activism. Bunch of progressives. Leftists swarm where conservatives are in the same way they leave states ran by progressives so they can move to places that are still run by state legislatures with traditional American values. This place is no different. Their pathological hatred for social conservatism compels them to be here. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
