Posted on 09/03/2015 10:03:37 AM PDT by GIdget2004
“A journalist should ask the homosexuals why they insist upon a license from this person and not from any of the other authorized persons.”
They have asked them that question many times.
The answer is generally something like she is not allowing anyone on her staff to issue licenses, and they don’t feel they should have to drive 30-60 minutes for service in another county when they pay taxes in Rowan County.
Is she going to remain in jail until the legislature meets again?
They see themselves as"Rosa Parks" and want the societal approval they envision for their "courage."
Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality... or DEATH!
The point is the state’s definition in the modern era is simply whatever judges, pols, or the voting majority think it is at any one time. That’s all it can ever be to the state, the state doesn’t have any other way to define it. It can get it right or it can get it wrong, but right or wrong that’s the state’s version. Pope Leo XIII warned about this 130 years ago in Arcanum.
As far as plants, rocks, or bugs getting married—if you can get judges, pols, or the voting majority to accept it then all that would be fine to the state. To many, the state hasn’t had a moral leg to stand on concerning marriage for centuries, for many more since no fault divorce.
Freegards
-PJ
Why should age be any limitation?
From Obergefell:
“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
Have you ever heard such mush?
By the way, the Constitution does not grant rights.
Maybe not by all gays, but I daresay that if some could see it done, they'd do it.
Because they don't want the license, they want subjugation. That is all they are after. Brainless dolts think this is about the license, or her "job."
It is about destroying Christianity. It is about subjugating opposition.
That's the rub here, she was elected to uphold Kentucky law, which she is doing.
SCOTUS came along and changed that mid stream violating Kentucky law.
She is doing what she was elected to do, if the KY legislator changes the law then she would have a choice to stay on...or not.
Fact is, SCOTUS does not write law, legislators do....she is correct.
Yep, all that’s missing is the little lightning bolts on their sleeves....
The state is involved in marriage licensing for 2 reasons. First, it was established to prevent interracial marriage. Second, it is a source of revenue both before and after the marriage. Divorce is a substantial revenue generator for the state.
There is no legitimate reason for churches to accede to the state’s involvement in the sacrament of marriage. It is a rite of the church, like baptism or communion and is a commitment between a man and a woman committing their marriage to God. Perhaps this is why many couples are living together without a license.
Natural law trumps mans' law and those that choose to obey mans law and disobey G*ds' law risk losing their souls to Satan.
They could have asked others to issue a license (although in violation of Kentucky law)
Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.050(1)(b) Marriage shall be solemnized only by ... Justices and judges of the Court of Justice, retired justices and judges of the Court of Justice except those removed for cause or convicted of a felony, county judges/executive, and such justices of the peace and fiscal court commissioners as the Governor or the county judge/executive authorizes
Ditto
Let's hope it destroys them and serve to wake this Country up!
Oh, that is going to be interesting. Then the homos will request a marriage license and the clerk will have them thrown off the building.
No. But like those who turned a blind eye to the laws of Germany (every thing Hitler did was legal according to German law) which codified the violation of conscience of a certain group, likewise, Mrs. Davis sees the federal government forcing her to grant government approval to the acts of sodomy, perversion, and denial of God’s Law all anure to her decision to stand with her Christian belief. As the Bible says, “Let God be true and every man a liar”. My hat is off to her for standing with Bibllcal Truth and Natural Law. There are things we can’t not know. One of them is the divine injunction that marriage is one man and one woman in union. Man can subjugate the Natural Law, but it does not remove it from ones synderesis. Just as we all know it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person, it still happens. But the perpetrator knows it is wrong. It is our nature. We would do well to get back to these truths.
She is fulfilling her duties she was elected to do. She was NOT elected to pass out homo marriage licenses. As a matter of fact, the people who elected her voted 75% to prohibit homo marriage.
She is obeying the people she works for.
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.