Posted on 09/08/2015 2:04:58 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A Kentucky clerk who defied orders to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples was released from jail Tuesday, but her lawyer says she will continue to resist until officials find a way to accommodate her religious opposition to gay unions.
Kim Davis emerged from the Carter County Detention Center to a swell of cheers from Christian supporters who'd been rallying outside the gates since she was ordered behind bars on Thursday.
She later was introduced to the crowd to the song "Eye of the Tiger," raising her hands above her head and weeping on stage with her husband, lawyer and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. Out before her flew a variety of signs and banners, including an American and a Confederate flag. Davis thanked the supporters and encouraged them to act as they believe God wanted.
"Just keep on pressing," Davis said. "Don't let down. Because He is here."
Her lawyer, Mat Staver, promised earlier that she would not back down until her demands were met.
"She's not going to violate her conscience," Staver said.
That set up another legal confrontation on a case that is becoming a case study on the backlash to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
can someone remind me again of why the government is in the business of marriage beyond a contractual agreement between two individuals?
I’m just curious of the responses.
I told you the facts and you simply ignored them because the facts destroy your argument. Divorce and remarriage have many exceptions in the Bible and are described as abominations. Just try a different argument because your current one carries absolutely no weight.
“Apparently only THE CLERK’s ( Kim Davis ) signature makes the license valid.”
Yeah I was wondering about that... These licenses are invalid huh?
This is precisely what we should have, and *have* had since our founding. Once you throw the bone to homos, you've undone civility altogether. It is better public policy as well to reduce incentives for divorce and adultery. This is not merely scripturally affirmed, but an affirmed by nature and society, which is best held together by stable families.
RE: Yeah I was wondering about that... These licenses are invalid huh?
That’s what Kim Davis claims. See here:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3333368/posts
This might be the single worst-written sentence I've ever read.
The legislature here drew up their plans months ago, before any of this controversy started because they saw it coming, but the Governor refused to allow them to have a session for even a few days stating he wanted to “save taxpayer money.” Members of both parties repeatedly pressed him to do so, but he has continued to refuse - apparently, Beshear doesn’t mind his state being torn apart - terrible example of what a leader is supposed to be.
No, polygamy will come, and you can bet it will become law, sooner or later.
One of the arguments that will be used in favor of it are that polygamy is older or as old as monogamy. The moment someone points to Adam and Eve in support of monogamy preceding polygamy (Lemech practiced polygamy but just a little ways down from Adam in the Bible), someone will say that we don’t have a government that is based upon Adam and Eve.
The moment that someone says “yes we do” someone will say “which Adam and Eve, the Quranic Adam and Eve or the Biblical Adam and Eve?
And if the Biblical Adam and Eve, the books in the Ethiopic Bible that talk about them that aren’t included in other Bibles or the RC Bible or the Protestant Bible?
Secondly, someone will say that heterosexual marriage has went through many evolutions (dowry-based marriage found in the Old Testament), then arraigned marriages within Christianity, then love-based marriages found within Christianity (which we now go by instead of arraigned marriages) and so on.
Thanks for the heads up. So what do you think, will he sign such a legislation when the legislature comes back into session?
Like it was malicious or something... oh look now she’s on her 5th marriage and it’s to the Huck!
Funny. No discussion of impeachment of the “judge.” Not surprising though given the complete lack of honor, courage, and decency in congress these days.
Get out of here you quibbulator.
It is indeed futile to do what you described, but anything that man touches ultimately is futile. Mankind screws up whatever he touches and marriage is no different.
First there was monogamy, then polygamy - and even Godly men and women trafficked in it. Then there were dowry-based marriages and Godly men trafficked in this as well. Then there were Christian arraigned marriages, though there is no scriptural precedent in the NT for this.
Paul even wrote that if a godly man wanted to “keep his virgin,” he had the right to do so. I Corinthians chapter 7.
IOW, if a father did not want his daughter to marry (this is one of the allowances within this scripture) but rather wanted her to stay unmarried, he could do so.
If some man tried to do this today, just about every Christian would be against this though.
So Christians have also not adhered to all of the NT as well.
BTW, I don’t agree with what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7. But he said, too, that this was his own opinion on the matter and not from the Lord.
Keep in mind that she has the law on her side. The 10th and 11th Amendment to the Constitution prohibit the Supreme Court from making the decision they just made.
10th Amendment - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
11th Amendment - The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it mention Gay Marriage or anything to do with it? What one state decides to do has nothing to do with another state. That is basically what the 11th Amendment says.
The founding fathers meant what it says in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. If an article isn’t specifically mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, it belongs to the states or the people. Anything else is a semantical manipulation, an attempt to manipulate what should really be their decision.
No, what I said destroys your futile arguments.
I have said that homosexuality is forbidden by the scriptures and that Paul said it leads to hell fire.
I have also said that the scriptures call divorce and remarriage adultery and Paul said it leads to hell fire as well.
The only point of contention is the disagreement over what kinds of divorces and remarriages are allowed. Some go by the book of Mark, and some go by the book of Matthew, as one contains a clause that the other doesn’t.
In the end, though, both sides agree that there are at least some kinds of divorces and remarriages not allowed by scripture, that adultery is a sexual sin, too, that then both gay marriage and adultery lead to hell-fire, and that gay marriage also isn’t allowed by scripture.
Iow’s killing in self defense and killing to rid yourself if your wife are the same thing. Right?
Oh please...
As I have said many times... I DO NOT SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE.
Period.
But I also know that the same arguments used in favor of gay marriage can be used in favor of polygamy, too.
And I know, further, that the arguments that can be used against gay marriage can also be used against divorce and remarriage as both are sexual sins and both lead to hell fire, according to what Paul wrote.
My spelling out all of the complexities troubles you and others, but the Bible condemns both (gay marriage and divorce and remarriage ((and polygamy, too)) and both lead to hell-fire, as Paul stated.
Just the way it is...
There are scriptures that say the former is not murder and the latter is.
Apples to oranges argument coming from you. yawn.
Do what Paul said. period.
You can yawn all you please. I think any fair observer understands that you’re argument has been thoroughly debunked. Homosexuality is an abomination scripturally speaking. As is murder. Self defense is not nor is divorce or remarriage. So I am more than happy to let others decide how weak your argument analogizing divorce and remarriage with an abomination is. Cheers!
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.