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.

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?

Originally Posted by 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

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?

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by 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 !!

see post #75

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?

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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!

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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