KY clerk of courts - Kim Davis

[Guest]

How do you feel about her refusing to perform gay marriages. And what do you think of the subsequent punishment?

[Guest]

She can have her religious convictions, but she also has a duty under the law which she vowed to uphold. She should have resigned. As for the punishment, there really wasn't any other course they could take.

[Guest]

She can have her religious convictions, but she also has a duty under the law which she vowed to uphold. She should have resigned. As for the punishment, there really wasn't any other course they could take.

Exactly my views. It is my understanding that they can't do anything but find her in contempt until the legislature is back in session.

[Guest]

Exactly my views. It is my understanding that they can't do anything but find her in contempt until the legislature is back in session.

If she was fined, someone would take care of it and she'd still not budge in following the law.

[Guest]

Religious beliefs are not equal. She will do what she is told or be fired. On the other hand, Muslims are allowed to wear their burkas for their drivers license photos. Employers are also being required to allow certain attire for religious practices. Airlines are providing special meals for the religious. I believe the only religion that has practices that are banned are the Christian faiths. Hey, even traffic is stopped in NYC for Muslims to pray in public.

If she can't perform her job due to religious belief, then they should transfer her to a different department. Do I empathize with her? Yes, but she still has a legal obligation to perform her job or get terminated.

[Guest]

I have an ounce of empathy, but issuing licenses are her job and she took an oath to follow the law.

She should have done the right thing from the beginning and stepped down.

[Guest]

She was wrong in what and how she did it.
Religious prefernce is fine, but if it interferes with the performance of her job then she has an obligation to step down/quit.

There is the issue of the job being an appointment hence not able to be fired. However there was an obilgation on the part of who ever appointed her to demand she perform the job assigned or relinquish the position.

There is no doubt she knew how this was going to end up. Where was the supervision/responsible management?

To allow it to become a media circus is in keeping with the sensationalism allure of the day.

There is more to the story not known.

[Guest]

She was wrong in what and how she did it.
Religious prefernce is fine, but if it interferes with the performance of her job then she has an obligation to step down/quit.

There is the issue of the job being an appointment hence not able to be fired. However there was an obilgation on the part of who ever appointed her to demand she perform the job assigned or relinquish the position.

There is no doubt she knew how this was going to end up. Where was the supervision/responsible management?

To allow it to become a media circus is in keeping with the sensationalism allure of the day.

There is more to the story not known.

Actually she was elected, and could not be fired.

[Guest]

Actually she was elected, and could not be fired.

I stand corrected...thanx.

[Guest]

I think she's an idiot...first because her job description has her signing wedding applications, and doesn't give her the right to refuse...second because she quotes God as a reason, but then ignores the interesting bit about not judging others as that's in His job description...not hers....she doesn't like gay marriage...since one person says she was elected then just impeach her stupid @ss...

[Guest]

It's about religious rights all around. If a religion allows for a same-sex ceremony and welcome gays into their congregation, that also is a religious right.

To me this is the legal part of marriage and God has little to do with it. Your beliefs and devotion to one another is not something you can buy with a license.

[Guest]

This situation is just the beginning of an assault on religious freedom. the standard defense is going to be its your job follow the rules follow my orders...that's what many of the Nazi said when they were tried.

The Supreme court activist have opened a pandora's box unnecessarily

I support the county clerk

[Guest]

This situation is just the beginning of an assault on religious freedom. the standard defense is going to be its your job follow the rules follow my orders...that's what many of the Nazi said when they were tried.

The Supreme court activist have opened a pandora's box unnecessarily

I support the county clerk

So if I robbed you and said that it was within my religious rights and to heck with the law, you wouldn't prosecute?

We cannot live in a lawless society, even if you do not accept the authority.

A marriage license is a non religious issue. A religion or church has every right not to married a same-sex couple. That is their freedom, and it is not challenged here.

[Guest]

The county clerk was totally wrong. She was breaking the law by not giving marriage licenses. Same sex marriage is the law of the land. Keep her in jail.

[Guest]

Keep it simple. She refused to perform the job she was elected to do and agreed to do when she ran for the job.

Religion, sexual preference and anything else is political canon fodder.

She knowingly failed to perform her job!

[Guest]

This situation is just the beginning of an assault on religious freedom. the standard defense is going to be its your job follow the rules follow my orders...that's what many of the Nazi said when they were tried.

The Supreme court activist have opened a pandora's box unnecessarily

I support the county clerk


...and you are legally WRONG. Would you support the county clerk if it meant YOU had to go to jail? Be honest with your answer.

[Guest]

She had legal options. Once this became law, she could have protested. She could have resigned. She could not refuse to issue a marriage certificate to a gay couple. Once upon a time, miscegenation was illegal and court clerks refused to issue licenses to mixed-race couples even when miscegenation was declared illegal. The clerks got away with it. This time around, the Feds have more power and can do something to enforce the law. Ms. Davis and her ilk need to either do their job or resign. If they refuse to follow the law, they should be prosecuted and treated as the lawbreakers they are.

[Guest]

There is an old country song goes something like this (you have to stand for something or you fall for anything) If its that big a of deal they should just fire her and fight the discharge later. No jail time.

[Guest]

Ah now the real truth of the matter is beginning to surface. The state legislature is proposing changing the laws that would make them more in step with the supreme courts decision.

And all the super smart politicians and lawyers and judges did not know the supreme court ruling was in fact counter to many KY laws on the books??

In practical application the KY laws on the books do not allow for same gender situations.
So this whole episode could have been an issue of "ENFORCING THE EXISTING LAWS" and not another race/gender/political-media circus.

Special interest/minority groups in conjunction with the 24/7 media are the ruination of our beloved country.

[Guest]

There is an old country song goes something like this (you have to stand for something or you fall for anything) If its that big a of deal they should just fire her and fight the discharge later. No jail time.

Kim Davis cannot be fired as she is an elected official. Jail time for contempt of court is the solution. People have to learn consequences if they openly break the law.

[Guest]

Kim Davis cannot be fired as she is an elected official. Jail time for contempt of court is the solution. People have to learn consequences if they openly break the law.

Instead of creating another gender media circus she could have cited the laws of KY did not support issuing the certificates. But then that would have not had the sensationalism, agenda promoting media frenzy, would it?

[Guest]

Ah now the real truth of the matter is beginning to surface. The state legislature is proposing changing the laws that would make them more in step with the supreme courts decision.

And all the super smart politicians and lawyers and judges did not know the supreme court ruling was in fact counter to many KY laws on the books??

In practical application the KY laws on the books do not allow for same gender situations.
So this whole episode could have been an issue of "ENFORCING THE EXISTING LAWS" and not another race/gender/political-media circus.

Special interest/minority groups in conjunction with the 24/7 media are the ruination of our beloved country.

However, when the Supreme Court decision was handed down, the Kentucky state laws against same sex marriage all became invalid. There were no "existing" laws to enorce.

[Guest]

So if I robbed you and said that it was within my religious rights and to heck with the law, you wouldn't prosecute?

We cannot live in a lawless society, even if you do not accept the authority.

A marriage license is a non religious issue. A religion or church has every right not to married a same-sex couple. That is their freedom, and it is not challenged here.

Since the Feds don't believe in enforcing the immigration laws, we can pick and chose the laws that fit us, right? Az found that out, didn't they?

[Guest]

However, when the Supreme Court decision was handed down, the Kentucky state laws against same sex marriage all became invalid. There were no "existing" laws to enorce.

Then why is the KY legislature claiming that is the issue, and requesting getting the laws changed?
To the question posed earlier why did not the lawers, judges and law makers address the issue.

It is nothing more than a contrived special interest, media exploitation.

[Guest]

Married husband #1
Fathered twins with husband #3
Divorced husband #1
Married husband #2
Husband #2 adopts her kids
Divorced husband #2
Married husband #3
Divorced husband #3
Remarried husband #2

And she is a defender of the traditional Biblical marriage?

[Guest]

Married husband #1
Fathered twins with husband #3
Divorced husband #1
Married husband #2
Husband #2 adopts her kids
Divorced husband #2
Married husband #3
Divorced husband #3
Remarried husband #2

And she is a defender of the traditional Biblical marriage?

Sounds like a perfect example of a Kentucky hillbilly.

[Guest]

Married husband #1
Fathered twins with husband #3
Divorced husband #1
Married husband #2
Husband #2 adopts her kids
Divorced husband #2
Married husband #3
Divorced husband #3
Remarried husband #2

And she is a defender of the traditional Biblical marriage?

You can always count on certain posters to go for the personal attack instead of the issue being discussed.

WHAT does any of this have to do with the issue of discussion ?

If it is pertinent, then please present your personal resume for us to judge your ability to have an opinion.

Judging others is easy, isnt it ? Especially if it fits your political feelings.

[Guest]

Sounds like a perfect example of a Kentucky hillbilly.

You don't have to get racist about it. That is just like calling a black the N-word

[Guest]

Married husband #1
Fathered twins with husband #3
Divorced husband #1
Married husband #2
Husband #2 adopts her kids
Divorced husband #2
Married husband #3
Divorced husband #3
Remarried husband #2

And she is a defender of the traditional Biblical marriage?

Are not all relions frought with hypocritic members. Who like the current administration use the selective fit rules of law and enforcement or not.

And if the message is on agenda point it does not matter one bit what the person did or did not do....kinda Clinton-like measurement.

[Guest]

Married husband #1
Fathered twins with husband #3
Divorced husband #1
Married husband #2
Husband #2 adopts her kids
Divorced husband #2
Married husband #3
Divorced husband #3
Remarried husband #2

And she is a defender of the traditional Biblical marriage?

Your post is an excellent example of what liberals always do ... trash any woman who violates liberal precepts of any type. You would have made a good candidate for Hillary's Bimbo Eruption Unit ... the real war on women.

btw, Kim converted to Christianity after having made a hash of her life ...that's the basic idea of forgiveness. Hmm, maybe there's hope for Hillary after all ... especially after she's indicted?

[Guest]

Your post is an excellent example of what liberals always do ... trash any woman who violates liberal precepts of any type. You would have made a good candidate for Hillary's Bimbo Eruption Unit ... the real war on women.

btw, Kim converted to Christianity after having made a hash of her life ...that's the basic idea of forgiveness. Hmm, maybe there's hope for Hillary after all ... especially after she's indicted?

Excellent example of trashing a woman. Bimbo says it all.

[Guest]

Since the Feds don't believe in enforcing the immigration laws, we can pick and chose the laws that fit us, right? Az found that out, didn't they?

I'm starting to come around to that point of view ... conservatives always get suckered by the libs regarding sanctity of rule of law .... but it's selective. Obama ignores laws he does not like and his acolytes pontificate on things like gay marriage (an oxymoron), enforcing the "law' handed down by Anthony Kennedy personal beliefes etc.

Thus, since liberals have trashed the rule of law, when Trump is elected I look forward to selective law enforcement but from the other side of the spectrum.

[Guest]

I'm starting to come around to that point of view ... conservatives always get suckered by the libs regarding sanctity of rule of law .... but it's selective. Obama ignores laws he does not like and his acolytes pontificate on things like gay marriage (an oxymoron), enforcing the "law' handed down by Anthony Kennedy personal beliefes etc.

Thus, since liberals have trashed the rule of law, when Trump is elected I look forward to selective law enforcement but from the other side of the spectrum.

That works for me. Like some liberal said, "elections have consequences". When liberals controlled congress and started passing bills without a Republican vote, they screamed that Republicans didn't know how to compromise. Now that they are the minority, they are still whining that Republicans don't know how to compromise, yet they won't add their vote to anything. I guess compromise is overrated.

[Guest]

You can always count on certain posters to go for the personal attack instead of the issue being discussed.

WHAT does any of this have to do with the issue of discussion ?

If it is pertinent, then please present your personal resume for us to judge your ability to have an opinion.

Judging others is easy, isnt it ? Especially if it fits your political feelings.

:thumbup:

[Guest]

You don't have to get racist about it. That is just like calling a black the N-word

Didn't you know that it's only racist if you are saying it against a black, Latin, or gay:D

[Guest]

I would think that any couple in Rowan County, KY, who could not obtain a marriage license in that county could just drive over to another county to get their marriage license. As far as I have heard, Rowan County is the only one whose County Clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses.

The marriage license from any county is valid for the entire state.

[Guest]

I would think that any couple in Rowan County, KY, who could not obtain a marriage license in that county could just drive over to another county to get their marriage license. As far as I have heard, Rowan County is the only one whose County Clerk refuses to issue marriage licenses.

The marriage license from any county is valid for the entire state.

Now how would such a make sense low profile, no problem solution satisfy the special interest and minority groups and the media that fan their flames.

[Guest]

So, a low level clerk refuses to enforce the law (as determined by Antony Kennedy) and the liberals want her to go to jail ...

Yet Obie trashes the Constitution in more ways than most of us can keep up with, and on huge issues, yet no one calls for him to go to jail??

Does anyone else see a slight discrepancy here in the scales of justice in USA 2015??

[Guest]

So, a low level clerk refuses to enforce the law (as determined by Antony Kennedy) and the liberals want her to go to jail ...

Yet Obie trashes the Constitution in more ways than most of us can keep up with, and on huge issues, yet no one calls for him to go to jail??

Does anyone else see a slight discrepancy here in the scales of justice in USA 2015??

It all depends on which side of the political spectrum you reside on.

[Guest]

So, a low level clerk refuses to enforce the law (as determined by Antony Kennedy) and the liberals want her to go to jail ...

Yet Obie trashes the Constitution in more ways than most of us can keep up with, and on huge issues, yet no one calls for him to go to jail??

Does anyone else see a slight discrepancy here in the scales of justice in USA 2015??

You must have forgotten that we employ selective enforcement!!

[Guest]

i believe she is trying to uphold the laws of kentucky, which have not yet been changed to agree with the supreme court decision. it seems that states rights have also been thrown by the wayside in favor of media hype. jailing this woman is a travesty.

[Guest]

i believe she is trying to uphold the laws of kentucky, which have not yet been changed to agree with the supreme court decision. it seems that states rights have also been thrown by the wayside in favor of media hype. jailing this woman is a travesty.

:agree:

[Guest]

Obama ignored decisions made by the Supreme Court and yet, no one has done a thing about it. He violates his oath of office on a regular basis and yet, he is treated with kid gloves. If you are going to jail a clerk for refusing to do her job, then lock up Obama for consistently NOT doing his job.

[Guest]

Wwjd

[Guest]

Obama ignored decisions made by the Supreme Court and yet, no one has done a thing about it. He violates his oath of office on a regular basis and yet, he is treated with kid gloves. If you are going to jail a clerk for refusing to do her job, then lock up Obama for consistently NOT doing his job.

Can you tell us specifically which Supreme Court decisions that Pres. Obama has ignored?

[Guest]

i believe she is trying to uphold the laws of kentucky, which have not yet been changed to agree with the supreme court decision. it seems that states rights have also been thrown by the wayside in favor of media hype. jailing this woman is a travesty.
She wasn't jailed for practicing her religion. She was jailed for using the government to force others to practice her religion. A big difference.

[Guest]

Can you tell us specifically which Supreme Court decisions that Pres. Obama has ignored?

Yes, and so can you if you use Google or Yahoo or Bing, etc. It's not up to me to provide this information for you if you don't pay attention to the daily news.

[Guest]

Can you tell us specifically which Supreme Court decisions that Pres. Obama has ignored?

Very coy but typically dishonest ... Executive Orders, selective enforcement or non-enforcement of statutes ... Obama is dishonest and should be sitting side by side with the KY clerk if the law were truly implemented in an equal fashion ... and deep down, I think you know that hence your sophistry.

[Guest]

She wasn't jailed for practicing her religion. She was jailed for using the government to force others to practice her religion. A big difference.

Not quite correct, Chi-Town. She was wrong, but she was also going by her documented instructions until the court ruling could be made into KY law and documented. Technically, she was following the letter of her instructions on KY marriage requirements. But, she refused to sign marriage licenses for gays, because she didn't believe in it. That made her wrong by court order. She should have quit her job, if she felt that way.

[Guest]

A Christian making a point---got to admire her "guts".

[Guest]

A Christian making a point---got to admire her "guts".

I disagree. She was elected to perform specified tasks, and she is morally opposed to one of those tasks.

A truly moral person would resign, not keep the perks and her moment in the limelight. A moral person would remove herself from the perceived immorality.

[Guest]

I disagree. She was elected to perform specified tasks, and she is morally opposed to one of those tasks.

A truly moral person would resign, not keep the perks and her moment in the limelight. A moral person would remove herself from the perceived immorality.

There were so many posts I agree with in here I almost didn't quote any. I have to say I'm very happy to see how civil this thread has been I've seen many other that are a lot less controversial that go straight into the gutter. A big thank you to all the thoughtful posts. :BigApplause:

[Guest]

Yes, and so can you if you use Google or Yahoo or Bing, etc. It's not up to me to provide this information for you if you don't pay attention to the daily news.







So, in other words, no you cannot tell us which Supreme Court rulings Obama has ignored.

Kinda what I figured

[Guest]

So, in other words, no you cannot tell us which Supreme Court rulings Obama has ignored.

Kinda what I figured

No the poster says you can get off your lazy butt and do your own research.

Obama's lawlessness in terms of ignoring or defying the Constitution is well known and, except for the oblivious like you, not in need of reaffirming the obvious. Besides, all you're really doing is trying to change the subject again

[Guest]

So, in other words, no you cannot tell us which Supreme Court rulings Obama has ignored.

Kinda what I figured

Sure, I can. And if you thought about it, you would remember also. But, think what you want, and bait all you want. I enjoy bantering along with trolls on occasion.

[Guest]

So, in other words, no you cannot tell us which Supreme Court rulings Obama has ignored.

Kinda what I figured

Here, since you liberals insist on a free ride, let me give you "a hand up."

https://www.google.com/#q=court+rulings+that+obama+disregards

[Guest]

Here, since you liberals insist on a free ride, let me give you "a hand up."

https://www.google.com/#q=court+rulings+that+obama+disregards

When you phrase a Google search like that what are you going to get?Judicial Watch, Washington Examiner, The Guardian, Committee For Justice, Newsbusters, Washington Times.....kind of a who's who of very conservative rags and blogs. Nothing but opinion.

[Guest]

When you phrase a Google search like that what are you going to get?Judicial Watch, Washington Examiner, The Guardian, Committee For Justice, Newsbusters, Washington Times.....kind of a who's who of very conservative rags and blogs. Nothing but opinion.

Chi-Town, actually, you are right. I noticed that too. Quite refreshing, considering the fact that Google seems to favor a liberal view in most things, somehow. But, if it's true, does it matter where it came from? :highfive:

[Guest]

When you phrase a Google search like that what are you going to get?Judicial Watch, Washington Examiner, The Guardian, Committee For Justice, Newsbusters, Washington Times.....kind of a who's who of very conservative rags and blogs. Nothing but opinion.

You are absolutely right that those websites are worthless. I really would not read anything on my computer from them for fear of my computer catching some virus spread by them.

Interesting - when I worked in Washington DC, the Washington Examiner was given away free at all the Metro stations. It had a good crossword puzzle to make the commute easier. I never bothered reading the tabloid but enjoyed The Washington Post and talking to the other partners about before the daily meetings.

[Guest]

You are absolutely right that those websites are worthless. I really would not read anything on my computer from them for fear of my computer catching some virus spread by them.

Interesting - when I worked in Washington DC, the Washington Examiner was given away free at all the Metro stations. It had a good crossword puzzle to make the commute easier. I never bothered reading the tabloid but enjoyed The Washington Post and talking to the other partners about before the daily meetings.

I delivered the Washington Post when I was a kid. Long time ago. But, I digress. It's too bad that a liberal isn't open minded enough to read ALL the information sources. When I get up in the morning, the first TV news station I watch is a liberal one, then the second one is also. I don't turn FOX on until I've had to endure each local station repeat the same old local news twice or more. I also peruse Huffington from time to time. And I do know that a lot of liberals watch FOX because otherwise they wouldn't even know anything is happening in the world, regardless of politics or world news. CNN is a good source for world news but their commentary is wacko. But, thanks to the liberals, FOX cable NEWS is the number one rated cable news network. Couldn't have done it without you all.
By the way, we used to get the Washington News, but I think it was sold off a long time ago. I'm talking of the '50's.

[Guest]

Someone in public office is subject to the laws of the land according to my understanding. Let's say Kim was of a religion that didn't accept a marriage between Jews and Christians. So she refuses to issue a marriage license. I'd say she should be out of a job because of the ever popular subject of the separation of Church and State. This prevents someone who is say a Muslim and acts in relation to Sharia law which as we know would be contrary to the law of the land. To quote The Donald "your fired". Kim's jail time was a little harsh. Kim is now a martyr in some eyes. Now we know why the Founding Fathers believed in this separation.

[Guest]

Someone in public office is subject to the laws of the land according to my understanding. Let's say Kim was of a religion that didn't accept a marriage between Jews and Christians. So she refuses to issue a marriage license. I'd say she should be out of a job because of the ever popular subject of the separation of Church and State. This prevents someone who is say a Muslim and acts in relation to Sharia law which as we know would be contrary to the law of the land. To quote The Donald "your fired". Kim's jail time was a little harsh. Kim is now a martyr in some eyes. Now we know why the Founding Fathers believed in this separation.

No hypothetical argument. She was elected by Kentucky voters and swore to follow laws of the State of Kentucky which clearly define marriage.

"402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
Effective: July 15, 1998
History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998."

For those who take issue with this, there are means to change State Law. But until that happens, were she to issue licenses in violation of Kentucky state law would she not then be jailed for violating the state laws that she swore to follow? But for now, States issue marriage licenses and federal government does not. If the argument is that the recent Supreme Court decision makes the state laws unconstitutional, then some that are yelling the loudest about this clerk's action should also be yelling about sanctuary cities that defy federal immigration laws on a daily basis and no one objects.

[Guest]

I would also argue that this matter has been portrayed by some as a separation of church and state issue, which in my opinion is not the case. It is an issue of states rights and state laws vs. Federal law. I know of no such thing as a Federal Marriage License and the issuance of Marriage Licenses has always been a responsibility of individual states and the laws that deal with those licenses has never been a federal matter. Ditto for drivers licenses etc. If posters to this blog want to give all responsibility to the federal government then you miss out on what the founding fathers had in mind.

[Guest]

No hypothetical argument. She was elected by Kentucky voters and swore to follow laws of the State of Kentucky which clearly define marriage.

"402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
Effective: July 15, 1998
History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998."

For those who take issue with this, there are means to change State Law. But until that happens, were she to issue licenses in violation of Kentucky state law would she not then be jailed for violating the state laws that she swore to follow? But for now, States issue marriage licenses and federal government does not. If the argument is that the recent Supreme Court decision makes the state laws unconstitutional, then some that are yelling the loudest about this clerk's action should also be yelling about sanctuary cities that defy federal immigration laws on a daily basis and no one objects.

Very good information. Thanks :BigApplause:

[Guest]

I would also argue that this matter has been portrayed by some as a separation of church and state issue, which in my opinion is not the case. It is an issue of states rights and state laws vs. Federal law. I know of no such thing as a Federal Marriage License and the issuance of Marriage Licenses has always been a responsibility of individual states and the laws that deal with those licenses has never been a federal matter. Ditto for drivers licenses etc. If posters to this blog want to give all responsibility to the federal government then you miss out on what the founding fathers had in mind.

Exactly!!!

[Guest]

Before you condemn this women who was really following the laws of the State of Kentucky as she swore to do, you might want to refresh your collective memories and re-read the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. It's not too hard to find via Google or any other search engine. Once again, marriage laws and licenses are a state responsibility.

[Guest]

Once again, marriage laws and licenses are a state responsibility.

So, it is okay if a state were to change their laws and once again make it illegal for people of different races to marry? For some odd reason, I thought this fell under civil rights, not state rights. Miscegenation was against the law in several states. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down those laws. Many felt that such marriages were an obscenity and did their best to prevent these marriages, including county clerks refusing to sign the marriage certificates. I see no difference between the Court allowing same sex marriage today and allowing mixed race marriages in the past. there are times when civil rights should trump state rights. That's one of the reasons there was a civil war here.

[Guest]

So if I robbed you and said that it was within my religious rights and to heck with the law, you wouldn't prosecute?

We cannot live in a lawless society, even if you do not accept the authority.

A marriage license is a non religious issue. A religion or church has every right not to married a same-sex couple. That is their freedom, and it is not challenged here.

So you believe we cannot live in a lawless society. have you been paying attention to the Obama Administration? Have you been paying attention to the Clinton scandal(s)?

Do you recognize that the same people who would never consider walking out of a store with an item that they didn't pay for are the same people who would not give a second thought about downloading a pirated song or movie

The bigger picture here is a stand for religious rights which the gay community knew would be an obstacle..and for that matter Justice Kennedy if he followed his reading .

The Jewish solution was the law. Dred Scot was the law. so those who didn't accept the cited authority were lawless? It all comes down to who's ox is being gored, doesn't it?

Go clerk and i hope more people follow your example and that those who oppose the redefinition of marriage fight back because those supporting the gay community are also supporting their goal of eliminating gender.

Personal Best Regards:

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

So, it is okay if a state were to change their laws and once again make it illegal for people of different races to marry? For some odd reason, I thought this fell under civil rights, not state rights. Miscegenation was against the law in several states. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down those laws. Many felt that such marriages were an obscenity and did their best to prevent these marriages, including county clerks refusing to sign the marriage certificates. I see no difference between the Court allowing same sex marriage today and allowing mixed race marriages in the past. there are times when civil rights should trump state rights. That's one of the reasons there was a civil war here.

Interesting bit of history worth reviewing. Bill Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996 2 years before the date cited in Kentucky's Statute that define marriage in the same way. In this case, one might think that Kentucky was only mirroring federal law. Meanwhile, Kim Davis was not enacting laws or changing them. She is now in jail for following her state's law. How do you feel about cities not choosing to follow immigration laws that are Federal Laws? Are they not trumping ( pardon the pun) Federal laws especially since Federal Laws are the law of the land governing immigration.

[Guest]

So, it is okay if a state were to change their laws and once again make it illegal for people of different races to marry? For some odd reason, I thought this fell under civil rights, not state rights. Miscegenation was against the law in several states. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down those laws. Many felt that such marriages were an obscenity and did their best to prevent these marriages, including county clerks refusing to sign the marriage certificates. I see no difference between the Court allowing same sex marriage today and allowing mixed race marriages in the past. there are times when civil rights should trump state rights. That's one of the reasons there was a civil war here.

What's civil rights have to do with this? That doesn't even make sense. If the definition of marriage (not civil union) is a man and a woman, then no one is having their rights trampled upon. Almost all religions believe that homosexual behavior is deviant behavior. And since the majority of America is religious and not atheist, then that should hold some water.

If this state documents a requirement that marriage licenses must be issued to one man and one woman, then she is right in performing her duty. If this is so, then she has been falsely arrested, and will be vindicated. That is, IF politics and political correctness doesn't win out, and justice prevails.

[Guest]

The U.S. Supreme Court made same sex marriage a civil right when it handed down its ruling. It will take an amendment or the Court overturning its own, recent decision to change that law. I don't see either happening in the near future, do you? Ms. Kim did not argue that she was following Kentucky law in refusing to issue the marriage license. She claimed religious freedom. Following Kentucky law became moot with the SC ruling. In this case, Federal law wins, whether we like it or not.

It really is time for y'all to suck it up, hitch up your big boy panties and accept that the law of this land allows same sex marriages, just as black-white marriages and integration are the law today.

Ms. Kim had options. She could have resigned. She could have had another clerk issue the license. Instead, she went the route of refusal and publicity. I'm surprised she didn't try to block the courthouse door.

[Guest]

The U.S. Supreme Court made same sex marriage a civil right when it handed down its ruling. It will take an amendment or the Court overturning its own, recent decision to change that law. I don't see either happening in the near future, do you? Ms. Kim did not argue that she was following Kentucky law in refusing to issue the marriage license. She claimed religious freedom. Following Kentucky law became moot with the SC ruling. In this case, Federal law wins, whether we like it or not.

It really is time for y'all to suck it up, hitch up your big boy panties and accept that the law of this land allows same sex marriages, just as black-white marriages and integration are the law today.

Ms. Kim had options. She could have resigned. She could have had another clerk issue the license. Instead, she went the route of refusal and publicity. I'm surprised she didn't try to block the courthouse door.

Civil rights are based on race and gender, not sexual deviants. The court said, it was discrimination against the sexual deviants if they wished to get married. The law is the law. But, if the state law says that marriage licenses will be issued to one man and one woman, that's the way it is until they change it, regardless of what the court says. The court can say that discrimination is illegal but the court can NOT make law. They can interpret the law only. The state has the right to NOT issue marriage licenses if they so desire, or they can be charged in violation of a court decision, but they can not lawfully charge that woman if she is following her job description. If the court charged her with issuing a marriage license wrongfully, then it would be an invalid license, regardless of her signature. Now, if the documentation she was proceeding on did not state the definition of marriage or the procedure for handling such marriages as defined, then she would be wrong and should have resigned if she did not wish to do her job. Her religious convictions are invalid when doing her job. If she feels that she can't perform her job based on religious convictions, then she is not a competent employee of the county and should be removed. I also feel the same way about Obama, but it's kind of hard to force an emperor to step down.

[Guest]

God don't care what the supreme court says. God will stand behind this woman and against the ones that jailed her.

[Guest]

The U.S. Supreme Court made same sex marriage a civil right when it handed down its ruling. It will take an amendment or the Court overturning its own, recent decision to change that law. I don't see either happening in the near future, do you? Ms. Kim did not argue that she was following Kentucky law in refusing to issue the marriage license. She claimed religious freedom. Following Kentucky law became moot with the SC ruling. In this case, Federal law wins, whether we like it or not.

It really is time for y'all to suck it up, hitch up your big boy panties and accept that the law of this land allows same sex marriages, just as black-white marriages and integration are the law today.

Ms. Kim had options. She could have resigned. She could have had another clerk issue the license. Instead, she went the route of refusal and publicity. I'm surprised she didn't try to block the courthouse door.

Interesting points. You may be aware that the Defense of Marriage act from Bill Clinton became the law of the land by a large majority vote in Congress in 1996. It wasn't ruled unconstitutional until 2013. In 2011 The Obama administration decided the DOJ would not defend it in court. There was no outcry about the administration choosing what laws of the land it would follow. Same as it's lack of willingness to enforce immigration laws when sanctuary cities violate federal laws. I guess what bothers me the most if I can offer my opinion about what has happened to our country's laws, is that some choose to pick and choose what laws must be followed and which ones can be ignored. Keep in mind the laws of the State of Kentucky have yet to be changed as they define marriage and Kim Davis swore upon being elected to follow the laws of her state. Today Snowden is considered a traitor because he gave away classified information, while former Secy. of State Clinton choose not to protect classified information and follow State Dept. rules. Have we become a nation that picks and choose what laws and rules to follow. If so, we are headed down a slippery slope.

[Guest]

The U.S. Supreme Court made same sex marriage a civil right when it handed down its ruling. It will take an amendment or the Court overturning its own, recent decision to change that law. I don't see either happening in the near future, do you? Ms. Kim did not argue that she was following Kentucky law in refusing to issue the marriage license. She claimed religious freedom. Following Kentucky law became moot with the SC ruling. In this case, Federal law wins, whether we like it or not.

It really is time for y'all to suck it up, hitch up your big boy panties and accept that the law of this land allows same sex marriages, just as black-white marriages and integration are the law today.

Ms. Kim had options. She could have resigned. She could have had another clerk issue the license. Instead, she went the route of refusal and publicity. I'm surprised she didn't try to block the courthouse door.

Homosexuality has been with us for millennia , but for millennia every civilization in history has outlawed it in various ways, even if sometimes turning a blind eye to it. Marriage, applying natural law dating back to the Stoics, has always been understood to be between a man and a woman.

Thus, when someone argues the Supreme Ct (actually 5 lawyers with an agenda) in effect repeal what has been the natural law for 1000s of years, it's not hard to understand why most people have had enough. As in way more than enough ...

[Guest]

Didn't the Civil War start over State's Rights? Apparently, now that we have a Democrat as President and Supreme Court that doesn't support our religious beliefs we are ready for the religion based overthrow of Democracy. Just like Iran.
Even George Will on Fox News Sunday agreed that Kim was in error on her action and supported that based on an 1892 Supreme Court ruling.

[Guest]

Why is it that when we had a republican President and a supposedly conservative majority Supreme Court it was the law of the land, now it's considered five lawyers with an agenda?

[Guest]

Why is it that when we had a republican President and a supposedly conservative majority Supreme Court it was the law of the land, now it's considered five lawyers with an agenda?

Well let's consider the obvious ... the law under Republicans was interpreted vs being written on the bench whole cloth out of a liberal secular religious ideology might be one reason?

However, we've learned our lesson from Obama. Once we're in office, we'll simply do what he did ... selective law enforcement (or non-enforcement eg DOMA) and just write a bunch of Executive Orders if we can't get stuff through Congress. We have no choice at this point

[Guest]

It all depends on what the law as documented in that state provides for in relation to marriage. If it stipulates man and woman, then she will be acquitted. She can say that she did it because of her religious faith, but it won't matter unless she has the documentation to back her decision.

This has nothing to do with civil rights. Civil rights may give everyone the opportunity to get married, but it doesn't give a man the right to marry a pet, a woman to have multiple husbands, or two of the same gender to marry. The court made it's own decision to deem it discrimination not to allow two of the same gender to marry. That same court could also say it's discrimination to not allow Mormons to have several wives, a woman to marry her pet collie. Marriage licenses have always been authorized by state governments, not a federal jurisdiction. I wonder what the court would do if suddenly a state decided to cease issuing ANY marriage licenses. There's not a thing they could do about it. How about if a county told you to go to the next country to get your license, because it no longer issues licenses?
Obama has found it convenient not to obey court orders, so why should states?

[Guest]

Why is it that when we had a republican President and a supposedly conservative majority Supreme Court it was the law of the land, now it's considered five lawyers with an agenda?

Where did you get that idea? Something that you made up?

[Guest]

Well let's consider the obvious ... the law under Republicans was interpreted vs being written on the bench whole cloth out of a liberal secular religious ideology might be one reason?

However, we've learned our lesson from Obama. Once we're in office, we'll simply do what he did ... selective law enforcement (or non-enforcement eg DOMA) and just write a bunch of Executive Orders if we can't get stuff through Congress. We have no choice at this point

Exactly !!

[Guest]

see post #75

[Guest]

Those calling for her to resign her position - does it matter the rules were changed midstream? She didn't accept the job with the understanding she would have to issue a license to a same sex couple so is it reasonable to ask her to resign? She is probably not far from retirement - is it reasonable to ask her to give up the years she has served?

[Guest]

Those calling for her to resign her position - does it matter the rules were changed midstream? She didn't accept the job with the understanding she would have to issue a license to a same sex couple so is it reasonable to ask her to resign? She is probably not far from retirement - is it reasonable to ask her to give up the years she has served?

I think it depends on the totality of the circumstances. Her opinion aside, was she following the directions as written by the county? If so, she should have kept her mouth shut and explained to the applicants that she could not issue marriage licenses until she was issued written changes to the gender requirements. Court order has no bearing because she could be violating the county law by following the court order when she had received no written changes. But, all of this is supposition, because we don't know all the facts. In her case, she opened her mouth and was recorded saying that she was refusing under GOD's authority. It's a good reason, but not a valid one.

[Guest]

And we all do not knowif the subject laws are among those to be enforced or ignored or pretend they don't exist.

Depends which agenda the advantage is toward.

We all know theat LEO stands for law enforcement officer....those who protect and serve us.

In the last 7 years we have generated a new meaning to the same letters (unfortunately) leo = law enforcement OPTIONAL!!!

Note that I purposely used lower case letters for the latter.

[Guest]

God don't care what the supreme court says. God will stand behind this woman and against the ones that jailed her.

God is going to stand behind a woman that has been married four times. Marriage is between one man and one woman no matter how many times it takes to get it right. Sure, why not!

[Guest]

God is going to stand behind a woman that has been married four times. Marriage is between one man and one woman no matter how many times it takes to get it right. Sure, why not!

It's not relevant. She could be a new convert. Who are you to judge? Too bad she's not a Muslim. No one would be saying a thing. It would be handled quietly and gently.

[Guest]

I understand Mike Huckabee is going to have Kim Davis as his VP running mate.

[Guest]

I understand Mike Huckabee is going to have Kim Davis as his VP running mate.

I understand that Obama is planning on coming out of the closet. He secretly wears his wife's dresses, but don't tell anyone.

[Guest]

It's not relevant. She could be a new convert. Who are you to judge? Too bad she's not a Muslim. No one would be saying a thing. It would be handled quietly and gently.

Perhaps I have a slightly different take on this. I tend to be conservative but not very religious. That being said , I think the conflict is between 2 things:
1) The SCOTUS ruled that gay marriage is permissible and cannot be denied BY LAW. Is gay marriage THE LAW in Tennesee? The SCOTUS CANNOT write law, that takes the US or state legislatures. So, is she in jail for "breaking" a law that probably DOES NOT EXIST.
2) From her religious objection, she holds a position that now or shortly would require her to issue marriage licenses to gays. She does not have to perform or attend ceremonies. She does not have to bake their cake. She does not have to agree with their "sin". I'm sure she has issued many marriage licenses to other "sinners"--adulterers, drunk drivers, shoplifters, etc. All she has to do is her job. And if she needs religious clarification, even Christ told the people to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"---so it looks like Jesus expected his followers to follow man's law as well as God's

[Guest]

Perhaps I have a slightly different take on this. I tend to be conservative but not very religious. That being said , I think the conflict is between 2 things:
1) The SCOTUS ruled that gay marriage is permissible and cannot be denied BY LAW. Is gay marriage THE LAW in Tennesee? The SCOTUS CANNOT write law, that takes the US or state legislatures. So, is she in jail for "breaking" a law that probably DOES NOT EXIST.
2) From her religious objection, she holds a position that now or shortly would require her to issue marriage licenses to gays. She does not have to perform or attend ceremonies. She does not have to bake their cake. She does not have to agree with their "sin". I'm sure she has issued many marriage licenses to other "sinners"--adulterers, drunk drivers, shoplifters, etc. All she has to do is her job. And if she needs religious clarification, even Christ told the people to "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"---so it looks like Jesus expected his followers to follow man's law as well as God's

Absolutely right, in my opinion. I think you covered it very well. :thumbup:

[Guest]

God is going to stand behind a woman that has been married four times. Marriage is between one man and one woman no matter how many times it takes to get it right. Sure, why not!

Very Clintonian ... trash the woman and call her names. As someone else said, if she had been a Muslim we would not hear a peep out of you would we?

[Guest]

I understand that Obama is planning on coming out of the closet. He secretly wears his wife's dresses, but don't tell anyone.

I've heard the same rumor ... when Obie completes his term, he and Michelle go their separate ways. They will both become the superstar leaders of the LGBT movement.

[Guest]

Very Clintonian ... trash the woman and call her names. As someone else said, if she had been a Muslim we would not hear a peep out of you would we?

The bigger question is: similar to the bakery, if a gay couple want their wedding catered with a pig roast by a Muslim deli, would the government go after the deli with the same zeal as the bakery???? What if the wedding was on the Muslim Sabbath, or during Ramadan. What if they didn't want to see a meal delivered by someone wearing a burka??? What if they wanted the food to be uncovered just after a Christian prayer? Simple answer---it would be a free pass, the ACLU would sue the couple, and the media would feast on the carcass

[Guest]

I've heard the same rumor ... when Obie completes his term, he and Michelle go their separate ways. They will both become the superstar leaders of the LGBT movement.

That would require a work ethic, and Obie has never had a real job before. He may audition for host of SNL, since he spends a lot of time on there polishing his stand up comedy. Naw, still might have to work, and he won't have to once his pension kicks in. He'll probably try to crash the women's golf league, though. They can't turn him down, or that would be discrimination.

[Guest]

I disagree. She was elected to perform specified tasks, and she is morally opposed to one of those tasks.

A truly moral person would resign, not keep the perks and her moment in the limelight. A moral person would remove herself from the perceived immorality.

There is not a religion on earth that excepts homosexuals. Living in a free America she has all the right in the world to refuse them a license. The gay population is 1% in the USA and I assure you all there is no line waiting for this type of license. The couple should go to another county to get their license from an atheist.

[Guest]

There is not a religion on earth that excepts homosexuals. Living in a free America she has all the right in the world to refuse them a license. The gay population is 1% in the USA and I assure you all there is no line waiting for this type of license. The couple should go to another county to get their license from an atheist.

:agree:

[Guest]

There is not a religion on earth that excepts homosexuals. Living in a free America she has all the right in the world to refuse them a license. The gay population is 1% in the USA and I assure you all there is no line waiting for this type of license. The couple should go to another county to get their license from an atheist.

Where did you get your figures?

Bloomberg states: In fact, they think that 23 percent of Americans, or almost one in four, are are gays or lesbians, a Gallup survey released Thursday revealed. That's way off: The polling organization most recently found that less than 4 percent self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.



Americans Vastly Overestimate Size of Gay and Lesbian Population - Bloomberg Politics (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-22/americans-vastly-overestimate-size-of-lgbt-population)

And please, the word is ACCEPTS.

[Guest]

There is not a religion on earth that excepts homosexuals. Living in a free America she has all the right in the world to refuse them a license. The gay population is 1% in the USA and I assure you all there is no line waiting for this type of license. The couple should go to another county to get their license from an atheist.

You should go back to your 4th grade English class. The word is "accepts". Look it up.

[Guest]

Where did you get your figures?

Bloomberg states: In fact, they think that 23 percent of Americans, or almost one in four, are are gays or lesbians, a Gallup survey released Thursday revealed. That's way off: The polling organization most recently found that less than 4 percent self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.



Americans Vastly Overestimate Size of Gay and Lesbian*Population - Bloomberg Politics (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-22/americans-vastly-overestimate-size-of-lgbt-population)

And please, the word is ACCEPTS.

Dear Guest: spot on ...the gay community has been pedaling that nonsense for a long time to gain credibility. I venture a guess of about 1% of the population.

the gay community in the 1980's launched their overhaul of straight America which can be best expressed in Alexander Pope's poem "Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen, Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace." In other words display it repeatedly in plain view ( movies TV etc) which will normalize it and hence socialize it.

Preceding their launch was to manipulate the removal as being abnormal "homosexuality" from the DSM (Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses) If one has had an opportunity to review what is consider abnormal its clear the removal of homosexuality was politically motivated and not based on scientific fact .

One does not have to draw God into this argument because nature alone supports the argument against homosexuality The KY clerk discharged her duties was jailed without bail and remains in jail. A person accused of murder often is given bail. Worse yet this clerk should have never been jailed but this is a political stand that is being carried out across this country. common practice in such issues of disobedience begin with fines not jail time. and one has to ask why all those state and local offices issuing same sex marriages licenses were not jailed before the SCOTUS verdict?

Make no mistake about it this KY case is imperative to both sides as to who will win because it is a harbinger for the laws that follow.

I disagreed with SCOTUS because it was plain and simple politics at its worse and because I believe such decision belong to individual states.

The homosexual community is now making a big push against religious freedom and the elimination of gender. Can you imagine anyone denying that we have both male and female homo sapiens? Its maddening plain maddening.

Personal Best Regards:

The KY clerk

[Guest]

Where did you get your figures?

Bloomberg states: In fact, they think that 23 percent of Americans, or almost one in four, are are gays or lesbians, a Gallup survey released Thursday revealed. That's way off: The polling organization most recently found that less than 4 percent self-identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.



Americans Vastly Overestimate Size of Gay and Lesbian*Population - Bloomberg Politics (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-22/americans-vastly-overestimate-size-of-lgbt-population)

And please, the word is ACCEPTS.

Thank you for the help with the spelling (:

What I said still holds true there are no lines forming for this service in Kentucky or anywhere else.

The powers that be will jail someone for being a moral Christian and then build a prayer room at the Orlando airport for the muslim population.

[Guest]

Dear Guest: spot on ...the gay community has been pedaling that nonsense for a long time to gain credibility. I venture a guess of about 1% of the population.

the gay community in the 1980's launched their overhaul of straight America which can be best expressed in Alexander Pope's poem "Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen, Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace." In other words display it repeatedly in plain view ( movies TV etc) which will normalize it and hence socialize it.

Preceding their launch was to manipulate the removal as being abnormal "homosexuality" from the DSM (Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses) If one has had an opportunity to review what is consider abnormal its clear the removal of homosexuality was politically motivated and not based on scientific fact .

One does not have to draw God into this argument because nature alone supports the argument against homosexuality The KY clerk discharged her duties was jailed without bail and remains in jail. A person accused of murder often is given bail. Worse yet this clerk should have never been jailed but this is a political stand that is being carried out across this country. common practice in such issues of disobedience begin with fines not jail time. and one has to ask why all those state and local offices issuing same sex marriages licenses were not jailed before the SCOTUS verdict?

Make no mistake about it this KY case is imperative to both sides as to who will win because it is a harbinger for the laws that follow.

I disagreed with SCOTUS because it was plain and simple politics at its worse and because I believe such decision belong to individual states.

The homosexual community is now making a big push against religious freedom and the elimination of gender. Can you imagine anyone denying that we have both male and female homo sapiens? Its maddening plain maddening.

Personal Best Regards:

The KY clerk

Absolutely correct re: the DSM. Homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder until the early 70's when it was removed by a VOTE of psychiatrists on the editorial board that was something like a 52% to 48% margin if I remember correctly. And anyone who thinks, much less publishes that 23% of America is gay NEEDS a psychiatrist. That being said, gay exists, and gay citizens are entitled to equal protection UNDER THE LAW. That does not make them equal to non-gays in EVERYTHING, just under the law. I golf, but I am not EQUAL to Jack Nicklaus. I invest, but I am not equal to Warren Buffet. Likewise, a strictly lesbian couple is not equal say in reproductive capability. I think the supports of gay rights tend to merge the concept of equal protection under the law to equality in general, which is simply a myth, just as it is with equality among straights.

[Guest]

Absolutely correct re: the DSM. Homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder until the early 70's when it was removed by a VOTE of psychiatrists on the editorial board that was something like a 52% to 48% margin if I remember correctly. And anyone who thinks, much less publishes that 23% of America is gay NEEDS a psychiatrist. That being said, gay exists, and gay citizens are entitled to equal protection UNDER THE LAW. That does not make them equal to non-gays in EVERYTHING, just under the law. I golf, but I am not EQUAL to Jack Nicklaus. I invest, but I am not equal to Warren Buffet. Likewise, a strictly lesbian couple is not equal say in reproductive capability. I think the supports of gay rights tend to merge the concept of equal protection under the law to equality in general, which is simply a myth, just as it is with equality among straights.

Dear Guest: Just for clarification from a personal perspective I believe in the religious philosophy of hate the sin love the sinner. There are many lifestyles in America to which I disagree and can not relate .

I do not like the fact that five unelected judges made a decision to dismiss the definition of marriage as being one man and one women a definition and belief that has been handed down generation after generation since the beginning of time and for logical and natural reasons .

I don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms but I do not like it displayed in public.

Finally again the goal of the gay community leadership is to erase gender completely: To wit the transgender movements in schools, the military etc
The attempts to eliminate all pronouns that identify gender . Because if you successfully eliminate the definition of a man and a woman well the what's left ? and what differences does it then make in your choice? Radically progressives intellectualize themselves into stupidity ( ie they always en up going overboard and deluding themselves)

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

We should all refer to ourselves and others as "things". Then no one will be offended.

[Guest]

30 Magistrates in North Carolina are refusing to perform gay marriages, legally. North Carolina now has a law protecting them. I wonder what their law says that KY doesn't. I still think that this girl could have made things easier on herself if she had kept her mouth shut, and just refused to issue the licenses until she had to by written instruction.

[Guest]

30 Magistrates in North Carolina are refusing to perform gay marriages, legally. North Carolina now has a law protecting them. I wonder what their law says that KY doesn't. I still think that this girl could have made things easier on herself if she had kept her mouth shut, and just refused to issue the licenses until she had to by written instruction.

1. She's not a girl. She is an adult.

2. If she'd kept her mouth shut, she would have received no attention or sympathy.

3. There is a difference between issuing a license and performing a marriage ceremony, even if just a civil ceremony before a magistrate. Not sure how the Court will ultimately rule about forcing someone to perform a civil ceremony, but I'm hoping magistrates will be able to follow their beliefs on this one (and, yes, I'm very pro same sex marriages).

[Guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/opinion/we-dont-need-kim-davis-to-be-in-jail.html?_r=0

There does seem to be some unwillingness to compromise with respect to some government officials right to follow their religious beliefs.

[Guest]

Dear Guest: Just for clarification from a personal perspective I believe in the religious philosophy of hate the sin love the sinner. There are many lifestyles in America to which I disagree and can not relate .

I do not like the fact that five unelected judges made a decision to dismiss the definition of marriage as being one man and one women a definition and belief that has been handed down generation after generation since the beginning of time and for logical and natural reasons .

I don't care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms but I do not like it displayed in public.

Finally again the goal of the gay community leadership is to erase gender completely: To wit the transgender movements in schools, the military etc
The attempts to eliminate all pronouns that identify gender . Because if you successfully eliminate the definition of a man and a woman well the what's left ? and what differences does it then make in your choice? Radically progressives intellectualize themselves into stupidity ( ie they always en up going overboard and deluding themselves)

Personal Best Regards:

Very well articulated. Thank you.
The only way for this trend to be stopped before it is too late is for the silent, not in my back yard majority of Americans to speak up and be visible in their objection.

The special interest and minority groups have it figured out. They count on the lack of motivation and lack of taking action by the majority.

There are not many years left to put a stop to this trend.

[Guest]

Very well articulated. Thank you.
The only way for this trend to be stopped before it is too late is for the silent, not in my back yard majority of Americans to speak up and be visible in their objection.

The special interest and minority groups have it figured out. They count on the lack of motivation and lack of taking action by the majority.

There are not many years left to put a stop to this trend.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke

[Guest]

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke

Good quote-- I have been using it for about 4 yrs as my TOTV signature phrase. It needs to be said more often and we need to make it part of our basic understanding of the world.

[Guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/15/opinion/editorial-transgender-timeline.html?_r=0

I do not see transgender rights as being an "evil". And a slippery slop argument here does not seem to apply as very few people would want to go though these experiences IMHO.

[Guest]

For being among the smallest of small special interest or minority groups it gets far more attention than many issues with a much larger participation.

Now just why does such a "statistically insignificant" number get so much media and political attention?

[Guest]

Not just LBGT [emoji6]

54713

[Guest]

1. She's not a girl. She is an adult.

2. If she'd kept her mouth shut, she would have received no attention or sympathy.

3. There is a difference between issuing a license and performing a marriage ceremony, even if just a civil ceremony before a magistrate. Not sure how the Court will ultimately rule about forcing someone to perform a civil ceremony, but I'm hoping magistrates will be able to follow their beliefs on this one (and, yes, I'm very pro same sex marriages).

It's a bit of a shame that one would take offense to me using the term "girl". I wonder if the same indignation would be used, if I was to use a simple "guy" for a gentleman subject. A girl is a young woman, and considering my age, I guess young is relative.

I really don't think that being "pro same sex marriages" would matter, if she is technically right. In that I mean, if she was following written instructions defining prerequisites of issuing a marriage license. That's why I suggested that she probably would not have caused herself so much trouble if she would have simply stated that she did not have written instruction yet on issuing same sex marriages. Whether I am "pro" same sex or "con" makes little difference when related to statutory law. The Supreme court is not able to make law. It can only interpret the existing laws.

I empathize with her religious beliefs but also have to look at this realistically. In a matter of law, religion will almost always lose, regardless of the idea of majority rules.

[Guest]

I would say that nature supports same-sex couples. As the world gets bigger and more crowded, isn't it a good thing that some couples can't have children without artificial intervention? Keeps the population numbers down.

[Guest]

I would say that nature supports same-sex couples. As the world gets bigger and more crowded, isn't it a good thing that some couples can't have children without artificial intervention? Keeps the population numbers down.

Isn't that the purpose of Planned Parenthood? It seems to work in the black communities. :evil6:

[Guest]

30 Magistrates in North Carolina are refusing to perform gay marriages, legally. North Carolina now has a law protecting them. I wonder what their law says that KY doesn't. I still think that this girl could have made things easier on herself if she had kept her mouth shut, and just refused to issue the licenses until she had to by written instruction.

Girl, seriously? The WOMAN has been married 4 times and divorced 3 times she should not be called a girl!

The North Carolina law will not protect anyone. You have the absolute right to freedom of religion but not the right to impose your religion on the rest of us!!!!

[Guest]

//////

[Guest]

Girl, seriously? The WOMAN has been married 4 times and divorced 3 times she should not be called a girl!

The North Carolina law will not protect anyone. You have the absolute right to freedom of religion but not the right to impose your religion on the rest of us!!!!

Apparently, you seem to think that I give a hoot about being PC. I am an old man, a senior and she is a "girl" to me. And, I hardly care if she is a divorcee or not. If she is a converted Christian, that's been forgiven. That's between her and God. Did I appear to be defending her actions? I mentioned the North Carolina law as a matter of interest, slightly related to the subject. I don't live in NC or KY and also not wishing a gay marriage, so this is only a matter of slight and barely of interest. In my opinion, the gov can only provide civil contracts, civil unions. Marriage is via a blessing from the church, which according to the left is very much separate from the state. If you want to criticize me for misusing the term "girl" then don't blame me for pointing out the difference between a civil union and a church based marriage. I do not understand why the gov would issue marriage licenses anyway. Just my opinion, and not worth any more than anyone elses.

Guess I am a bit agitated today. Blame it on the rain.

[Guest]

//////





I agree. But even on the few occasions that I didn't agree with you dewilson, I never disliked you or felt angry with you.

[Guest]

Apparently, you seem to think that I give a hoot about being PC. I am an old man, a senior and she is a "girl" to me. And, I hardly care if she is a divorcee or not. If she is a converted Christian, that's been forgiven. That's between her and God. Did I appear to be defending her actions? I mentioned the North Carolina law as a matter of interest, slightly related to the subject. I don't live in NC or KY and also not wishing a gay marriage, so this is only a matter of slight and barely of interest. In my opinion, the gov can only provide civil contracts, civil unions. Marriage is via a blessing from the church, which according to the left is very much separate from the state. If you want to criticize me for misusing the term "girl" then don't blame me for pointing out the difference between a civil union and a church based marriage. I do not understand why the gov would issue marriage licenses anyway. Just my opinion, and not worth any more than anyone elses.

Guess I am a bit agitated today. Blame it on the rain.


I'm a bad boy too. I still use the terms.............Boys & Girls. My wife goes out with the girls (as she would say) and I go out with the boys sometimes. We even get wide & crazy and the boys and girls go out together. Not sure who have been divorced.

Guess I'm not PC either.