Posted on 09/04/2015 6:57:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Page 5:
Finally, the First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.
Page 27:
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.
If the judge is going to cite the Supreme Court ruling, then where is this protection? Were there not other alternatives short of imprisonment that could have taken first, if they were serious about protecting the First Amendment rights, too, during all of this?
Furthermore, if we are to have a "rule of law," then must stop judicial legislation and let the laws that rule us come from our representatives, not as edicts from a "judge."
Page 5:
(5) There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right.
There is the judicial arrogance for all to plainly see. The country doesn't have to wait for the representative process to work, because these few judges have an "enhanced understanding" and know better than the rest of us.
The Separation of Powers doesn't apply to them, and the separation of powers didn't apply to Kim Davis when an appointed judge jailed an elected executive.
-PJ
Commie Soros stooge John Podesta, chairman of Hillary for America, tweeted: “SCOTUS says LGBT couples can marry. Officials should uphold the law. Period.”
I would go beyond that.
In the Commonwealth of Kentucky, there IS a law. In fact, there is also a Constitutional Amendment. Both say marriages between persons of the same sex are not permitted.
Now, since the XIV Amendment says in §5 "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" Congress could, in theory, pass a national homosexual marriages act which would supersede the laws and the Constitution of Kentucky. But they have not done so.
I suppose it is possible, under a very liberal construction of Article III, that if the persons who applied to Kim Davis for a marriage license went to the Supreme Court that that court could issue a writ of mandamus ordering her to give those two particular persons a license, but that did not happen.
So, what exactly does it mean to say that it is the "law of the land" that ALL same sex couples must, without litigation, be granted marriage licenses in violation of the laws and or constitutions of 38 states? I'm not really sure.
“What law?”
EXACTLY.
There is no applicable law for her to be coerced into acting on.
KY marriage law is very clear about who it applies to, and the applicable SCOTUS ruling has not been reconciled therewith. Ergo, either KY law still applies as written (and Kim Davis is obligated to adhere thereto, prohibitions included), or the ENTIRE section of KY law is vacated (by default, the whole section goes unless the section clearly directs otherwise) and there is _no_ law for her to act on.
Its an interesting idea. Divide and conquer is always the way with these folks.
No, but it sounds like I should have
Yeah...I feel you, bruh.
Can I get some he’p for a YT here?
I described the unfolding drama as a case of competing revolutions — with Kim Davis defying Justice Kennedy’s revolutionary act with a revolutionary act of her own. We knew from the beginning which revolutionary held more power, and we also know that the worst revolutionaries show no mercy to dissenters.
Not posting “ag’in ya”, just keeping all relevant info in the proper places.
I know you and I are on the same page, here.
my #30 was meant toward you.
He is showing his true colors.
?
Actually, I would support the Quaker in that hypothetical — the state would need to find a way of issuing permits without forcing the Quaker to do so.
We have conscientious objector status in time of war, exempt the Amish and Muslims from requirements to buy insurance. Not doing the same for, non-conformists (adherents of religions which don’t conform to the secular courts’ settlement of marriage) is a violation of the plain meaning of the First Amendment, and as it applies to public office, the establishment of a religious test in violation of Section VI paragraph 3, whether the black-robed tyrants see this or not, and an affront to the very foundations of this country from before independence when many of the colonies were founded by non-conformists to the secular settlement of religion in England.
A simple question....(I don’t know the answer to this without searching.
Did the Kentucky Legislature a gay marriage bill and the governor signed it into law ???
I am going to assume the answer is no. IIRC Kentucky had a gay marriage BAN. So this is the judge looking to thwart the will of the voters by judicial fiat.
Or signed her THIRD set of divorce papers. Not saying divorced people can't be Christian; just pointing out that 3 times shows a decided lack of commitment the the holy act of marriage.
Hey, fair is fair. Theocracy is always a bad idea.
New tagline.
Obviously the pinhead that wrote this doesn't know that Kim Davis was elected County Clerk before the rogue US Supreme Court "made homosexual marriage the law of the land" and now the same Federal and US Supreme Courts have via judicial fiat "made law" that they're not entitled to make under their Constitutionally defined limits.
But let's not let little details like that get in the way of destroying a good woman who's holding fast to her faith.
I stand with Kim Davis.
Christians do recognize that there are times when divorce is necessary. For example, a husband having a history of domestic violence against his wife. No right thinking Christian would tell a woman living in that circumstance that she cannot divorce.
Have another strawman you want knocked down there bunkie?
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.