Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

AFTER SUPREME COURT ORDER KENTUCKY CLERK WILL NOT ISSUE GAY MARRIAGE LICENSE
9/1/2015 | Self

Posted on 09/01/2015 5:55:47 AM PDT by Nextrush

It happened in Kentucky minutes ago with Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis explaining to a gay couple why she would not give them a marriage license....

Cameras were there......


TOPICS: Breaking News; US: Kentucky
KEYWORDS: belongsinchat; gaykkk; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; kentucky; kimdavis; libertarians; medicalmarijuana; notnews; romneymarriage; romneyvsclerks; rowancounty; wthhrwnkndflght
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 381-384 next last
To: DiogenesLamp

Anything in the last fifty years or so is very highly suspect, more-so the more recent.


221 posted on 09/01/2015 10:19:41 PM PDT by Ray76 (When a gov't leads it's people down a path of destruction resistance is not only a right but a duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: eater-of-toast

You did not address the rest of my statement.

The nature of humans requires opposite genders for humanity to survive. That some couples may not produce offspring does not invalidate the requirement. Homosexual unions can not - by their very nature - produce offspring. This fact has always been recognized.

Comparing homosexual unions to bans on interracial marriage is nonsense. Interracial marriages produce offspring, homosexual unions can not.


222 posted on 09/01/2015 10:27:26 PM PDT by Ray76 (When a gov't leads it's people down a path of destruction resistance is not only a right but a duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: formerRepublicant

Love sometimes must take the form of a rebuke. Affirming one in his sin and furthering him along the road to perdition is not love but rather its opposite.


223 posted on 09/01/2015 10:33:34 PM PDT by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Cite something from the Constitution itself.


224 posted on 09/01/2015 10:57:30 PM PDT by eater-of-toast ("It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones." --Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Homosexual couples can and do use surrogates for impregnation or birthing, as do straight couples. I agree with your moral case against SSM, but our preference has been defeated in the US legal system. And current law must obtain until and unless a future SCOTUS majority decides otherwise.


225 posted on 09/01/2015 11:08:22 PM PDT by eater-of-toast ("It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones." --Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: eater-of-toast

Surrogates? You premise your position on surrogates?

That surrogates are REQUIRED for ANY AND ALL homosexual unions to produce offspring proves my point.


226 posted on 09/01/2015 11:12:18 PM PDT by Ray76 (When a gov't leads it's people down a path of destruction resistance is not only a right but a duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Sorry I missed your reply earlier.

I think it is important to keep natural law, reality, and reason at the front of the debate, because these concepts are less malleable than “religious convictions”. Moslems have deeply held religious convictions... that lead to beheadings and other murderous rampages.

When people are too ignorant or evil to discern between righteous and wicked attitudes and beliefs, demagogues can call truthful people “religious” in order to paint those opposed to brazen lies as wacko extremists. Often the quiet, unassuming, reasoned folks who are repulsed by these abominations *are* religious.

In these cases, though, their religious convictions are synonymous with the natural order of the created universe. The religion angle is a sitting duck. The reality angle is harder to demagogue.

227 posted on 09/01/2015 11:47:15 PM PDT by Ezekiel (All who mourn the destruction of America merit the celebration of her rebirth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: FlingWingFlyer

I crafted a headline quick. There was Supreme Court ‘action’ in the case, refusing to hear an appeal.

This case does lead back to a Supreme Court ‘order’ to force gay marriage on the nation.


228 posted on 09/01/2015 11:49:50 PM PDT by Nextrush (FREEDOM IS EVERYBODY'S BUSINESS, REMEMBER PASTOR NIEMOLLER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
And appears to be a particularly obnoxious troll at that.

The useful idiot leftist force is strong in this one...

229 posted on 09/02/2015 12:08:00 AM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

“On the other hand she was elected to carry out the duties of the county clerk, one of which is to issue marriage licenses”

Yes, but the “marriage licenses” she has the official duty to issue are Kentucky marriage licenses, NOT Federal marriage licenses, and Kentucky marriage licenses do not apply to — and, therefore, it is ludicrous to issue them to — same-sex couples.

By proxy (SCOTUS) FedGov has it’s position on the subject; Kentucky remains unmoved.

I’ve got a bad feeling this thing’s going to be hammer-and-tongs down to the last man standing.


230 posted on 09/02/2015 12:53:35 AM PDT by HKMk23 (You ask how to fight an idea? Well, I'll tell you how: with another idea!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

Contempt for what is contemptible is virtue.
Submission to what is contemptible is complicity.


231 posted on 09/02/2015 1:10:08 AM PDT by HKMk23 (You ask how to fight an idea? Well, I'll tell you how: with another idea!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Tau Food

“Beast.gov” is a sort of Web 2.0 referent to the biblical concept of “the fourth beast” of Daniel 7; understood to be representative of that vile and terrible kingdom yet to rise in the earth that will be ruled by Antichrist — “The Beast” of St. John’s Revelation (cf. Rev. 13).

MUCH has been written, and the Biblical specifics are too often clouded by a profusion of extrabiblical supposition, speculation, and philosophizing.

A few things are clear amid the fray:
— this coming kingdom will be a corporate manifestation of deepest evil.
— the influence of this kingdom will be global with no attached necessity that its borders encompass the whole Earth.
— in the depths of such darkness, the church will stand apart as a polar opposite to the vileness of the beast kingdom, and stand with blazing purity and unstinting commitment to Jesus, even in its very teeth.
— there will be more martyrs; perhaps millions. IOW, you think ISIS is vile; you ain’t seen NOTHIN’ yet.
— every living soul WILL choose a kingdom, and in that time there will be ONLY TWO to choose from. YOU will side with the beast, or with Jesus Christ.

And there’s more, but even at this I risk seeding argument between the pre-trib, the post-trib, the Preterists, and the amillennialists, and a host of other assorted -ists lining the halls of eschatology.

I do hope, however, that what I have presented is at least enlightening enough to give you a grid put “Beast.gov” into an understandable context.


232 posted on 09/02/2015 1:41:39 AM PDT by HKMk23 (You ask how to fight an idea? Well, I'll tell you how: with another idea!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Do you think post-menopausal women should be prohibited from marrying?


233 posted on 09/02/2015 4:18:18 AM PDT by eater-of-toast ("It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones." --Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: HKMk23
Yes, but the “marriage licenses” she has the official duty to issue are Kentucky marriage licenses, NOT Federal marriage licenses, and Kentucky marriage licenses do not apply to — and, therefore, it is ludicrous to issue them to — same-sex couples.

That's why I think the most effective approach here would be for states to get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses entirely.

Who the hell is anyone in a state government to insist on "licensing" a marriage, in the first place?

234 posted on 09/02/2015 4:18:29 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("It doesn't work for me. I gotta have more cowbell!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Chauncey Uppercrust
I don't think any government should be involved in recognizing marriages through licensing, certificates, etc. I think the institution of marriage is too important to be left in the hands of Caesar, and who the hell is anyone in government to issue a "license" for a religious sacrament in the first place?

If that makes me a liberal, then maybe one of us should be stepping back and looking at what constitutes conservative principles in this republic. We're witnessing the wholesale collapse of Western civilization. There isn't much of a "Christian coalition" left in a nation where Planned Parenthood butchers unborn babies and sells their body parts, is there?

The good news is that what you're seeing here isn't going to last very long. The bad news is that it's going to unravel when this country is filled with Mexican Muslims.

235 posted on 09/02/2015 4:25:20 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("It doesn't work for me. I gotta have more cowbell!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
If a group of persons wishes to form a personal conjugal venture they must comply with the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern marriages.

I don't see how this can be the case. So if a heterosexual couple wants to get married and is free to do so by any objective measure, what happens if an elected legislature tells them that they can't?

236 posted on 09/02/2015 4:27:03 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("It doesn't work for me. I gotta have more cowbell!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: eater-of-toast
Cite something from the Constitution itself.

I did. The signing portion is the most important part. It is under the authority of those Delegates that it has the legitimacy it possessed when it was sent to the states.

It acknowledged that Jesus was "Our Lord", and this wasn't a mere formality back in 1787.

It's precursor, the Articles of Confederation, was even more explicit.

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the united States in congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the union shall be perpetual.

In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth Day of July in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven Hundred and Seventy-eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.

But as for citing the Constitution, here's another bit of which most people are unaware.

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

The President was not required to work on the Sabbath because that would be a violation of Christian doctrine.

237 posted on 09/02/2015 6:12:30 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Ezekiel
I think it is important to keep natural law, reality, and reason at the front of the debate, because these concepts are less malleable than “religious convictions”. Moslems have deeply held religious convictions... that lead to beheadings and other murderous rampages.

In these cases, though, their religious convictions are synonymous with the natural order of the created universe. The religion angle is a sitting duck. The reality angle is harder to demagogue.

I understand your point and I agree with it.

238 posted on 09/02/2015 6:13:55 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: eater-of-toast
has been defeated in the US legal system. And current law must obtain until and unless a future SCOTUS majority decides otherwise.

More like we should treat the existing system as "broken" and try to throw as many monkey wrenches into illegal rulings as we possibly can.

What was it that Thomas Jefferson said? "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.!"

239 posted on 09/02/2015 6:19:07 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Theophilus; Tau Food
Our "civil rights" laws continually trample and crush our Natural and Constitutional rights.

Thank the 14th amendment for that. It is so badly written, and so overreaching that courts can use it to implement anything they want.

240 posted on 09/02/2015 6:20:12 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 381-384 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson