Posted on 09/09/2015 6:23:30 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Nothing.
My comment had to do with something very specific. It wasn’t a defense of homosexual marriage. It was just a statement of fact.
I don’t believe ceding ground to the homosexual activists is an obvious solution. Marriage has been recognized by governments for, gosh I don’t know, thousands of years I guess. I don’t see that as a bad thing, and I don’t think we should give that up. And I sure don’t think giving that up is going to solve the problem and stop the persecution of Christians.
I don’t have the solution either. I agree that Davis did the right thing, morally and legally, but it didn’t solve the problem. If we are to ever solve the problem, it won’t be as simple as ceding ground to the enemy. It will involve standing up for God, and not backing down. It will cost more than money, and few will be willing to pay the price.
Yours is the best suggestion I have heard yet.
Jam the courts and then appeal the rulings to the highest court possible.
Force the idiot politicians and judges back to reality.
It will not be pretty nor cheap, but it must be done.
Maybe it's because you drifted back to the Civil War and it's always so hard to find the sense in what you post on that subject? So never mind.
Please see my post #61. I think it will answer any questions you have about where I’m coming from.
Gotta give Hubby his meds, check his vitals, get him cleaned up and dressed, and get busy on the day.
Have a blessed day.
I think overall we’re generally on the same page, just differing in the details.
Watch. Once her name is not required there will be no more demand for those licenses.
|
|
Copies of licenses issued to three of the couples who sued Davis, which were included in the court record, show that where Davis' name ordinarily would be, the words "Rowan County" were used instead. So instead of the forms saying they were issued on a certain date "in the office of Kim Davis, Rowan County County Clerk," which would be standard, the examples included in the court file say the licenses were issued "in the office of Rowan County, Rowan County County Clerk.""Rowan County" is not the Clerk of Rowan County. Listing Rowan County instead of the Clerk or Deputy Clerk's name is a violation Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.100(1)(c), 402.110The three licenses had the name and initials of deputy clerk Brian Mason on a line designated for "recorder's name."
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=36475
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=36477
For an example of a Kentucky Marriage License please see "Exhibit D" https://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/2015/080515_Complaint_-_Davis_Third_Party_Complaint_against_Gov_Beshear_FINAL.pdf
|
|
“Marriage” is the word for the union of opposite genders. If that definition is abolished - as the USSC claims - then a new word would have to be created to describe a union of opposite genders. But such a word - and the concept is represents - has been declared “illegal” by the dictators of the USSC.
Clearly, the deputy clerk should be fired immediately. People in that town also should make sure he never works in those parts again. Let him go to San Francisco or New York City — places where perversion is tolerated and celebrated.
she could simply repurpose him to other not license tasks.
She is elected. He is not.
she can repurpose.
Direct insubordination. Fire him.
That file won’t open on my browser. How about you just post the text of it?
This is what i'm thinking. Pull down the pillars of the Temple of law if necessary to make them wish they had never done this. Make it cost them. Make it ruin their day.
My point is that if you support disobeying immoral laws in the case of slavery, you should also support disobeying immoral laws in other cases of great significance.
so under separation of power a judge can not assume executive powers?
HA! Guess I needed that in all caps. Yeah, I read it as COUNTY.
I thought that might have been the case.
Regardless, we need more of it.
I agree with you, but is there any proof that can demonstrate this to a secular court? I looked up the etymology for the word "Marriage" and it came back ambiguous.
The word "Matrimony" is clearly derived from "mother" and is therefore intimately associated with creating children, but I find no such clear intent and purpose derived from the root words of "Marriage."
If there was something (apart from the obvious that there have never been homosexual marriages) in the historical record which demonstrates that the meaning of the word is related to a male/female relationship, then the courts would be put in the position of arguing against a clear and demonstrable fact.
But such a word - and the concept is represents - has been declared “illegal” by the dictators of the USSC.
And if a mob ransacked their building, dragged the liberal five of them out into the street and hung them from lampposts, I would not object. I might even hold people's coats.
Three of them I would actively try to protect, but John Roberts is on his own.
Question.
How do you address the following SCOTUS ruling of June 26, 2015?
Decided on June 26, 2015, Obergefell overturned Baker and requires all states to issue marriage licenses
to same-sex couples and to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in other jurisdictions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges
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.