Posted on 09/03/2015 10:03:37 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Dan Griffin @WSAZDanGriffin 2m2 minutes ago Judge says financial fines not enough. #WSAZ
Dan Griffin @WSAZDanGriffin 4m4 minutes ago BREAKING: Davis held in contempt taken by U.S. Marshals. #WSAZ
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
If anybody should be in jail, it should be anti-Constitutional judges who thwart religious liberties. The First Amendment is FIRST for a reason.
Doubling down on stupidity?
Get over yourself.
* Look at it this way. If you accept the concept that SCOTUS has the final say on the constitutionality of a law, then the most that SCOTUS can do is overturn or invalidate laws that they determine to be unconstitutional. They CANNOT decree that existing laws have been changed. So if the Kentucky laws are written so that they specifically limit marriage to a man and a woman, SCOTUS may be able to overturn those laws so that they may not be enforced. But that means that Kentucky no longer has ANY laws concerning marriage. If the existing laws are invalid, then the state legislature will need to pass new laws that are constitutional. Until that happens, no marriage licenses in Kentucky can really be issued legally, can they? So by not issuing any marriage licenses, it seems like she was abiding by the current state of the law in Kentucky...*
On this you have a very valid point
Rather than insult why don’t you answer the questions?
Easy questions:
Do you support child marriage?
Do you support consanguineous marriage?
Yes or No?
Your so called question is a red herring. You are setting a very silly trap that you expect me to fall into.
I do not accept the legitimacy of homosexual marriage which the government has now protected. In so doing the government has abdicated any semblance of protecting society from abhorrent marital exercise, consanguine or otherwise.
Trap? Red herring? It’s a legitimate question. Why don’t you answer it?
> You in 606: Your belief that state licensure for marriage creates some kind of wholesome social environment is spurious.
> You in 686: the government has abdicated any semblance of protecting society from abhorrent marital exercise, consanguine...
Do marriage licenses serve a purpose or not?
No. BIG difference. By refusing and upholding the terms she was sworn in on, Kim Davis is in fact upholding the Constitution, her state's standards and the Bill of Rights.
Obama wants to destroy what is left of Biblical morality in this nation and believes the Constitution should be used as TP.
Again, BIG difference
BTW: 'Nep Nep July 30, 2015'
What brings you to FR?:)
No. They do not, beyond being a source of revenue and control by the state. And not a very good one at that.
Increasing numbers of cohabitants disdain the marriage license as an unnecessary and intrusive impediment to their life style. Many of these same persons would be more than willing to become celebrants in a religious ceremony of commitment.
The state provides a legal entanglement, not a moral protection.
The protection of children is a spurious argument for licensure. Child support is determined by paternity, not a license.
> What brings you to FR?:)
A burning desire to see Hillary Clinton fry.
Not one single governor of any state, red or blue, has used the police powers vested in him to prevent the enforcement of the Supreme Court decision. If the states refuse to interpose their authority against that of the Federal government, the "gay marriage" ruling will stay in place until the national government falls. Congress has never used its authority to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal courts. Amending the Constitution, either conventionally or through a Convention of the States, will not work because in either scenario, you would need to get three quarters, or 38, of the 50 states to ratify any amendment. I cannot imagine any Northeastern state, except maybe Pennsylvania, or any West Coast state, except Alaska, where an amendment overturning this decision would pass. That would be 14 likely "nos", even excluding Illinois or Minnesota.
> In so doing the government has abdicated any semblance of protecting society from abhorrent marital exercise, consanguine or otherwise.
You contradict yourself.
> The protection of children is a spurious argument for licensure. Child support is determined by paternity, not a license.
Child support? That has nothing to do with the topic: child marriage.
Do you or do you not support laws prohibiting child marriage?
Do you or do you not support laws prohibiting consanguineous marriage?
Very simple questions.
The illegitimate dictate of the Supreme Court is of greatest concern. Such action can not be tolerated.
The law in question is the federal contempt statute, and it was enacted in 1964.
There are lawful methods of solving this problem and it’s on Congress or the Kentucky legislature to make them happen.
This is what Davis should have done, the proper and lawful way to for a government employee to decline to follow a law that conflicts with a religious conviction: http://www.news-journal.com/news/2015/jul/10/rusk-county-clerk-resigns-over-gay-marriage-ruling/
Obviously marriage laws are subject to change at the whim of an out of control SC. There are laws against child molestation. Those are the ones that count, not some pie in the sky marriage regulation.
> Obviously marriage laws are subject to change at the whim of an out of control SC
No, they are not. The USSC has no such authority. NONE.
> There are laws against child molestation. Those are the ones that count, not some pie in the sky marriage regulation.
You in 606: Your belief that state licensure for marriage creates some kind of wholesome social environment is spurious.
You support marriage licenses only when they restrict child “marriage” but not when they restrict homosexual “marriage”.
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.