Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why do you think it's okay for a government official to violate the law on a whim?
Yet she took an oath to uphold the law then she violated it. Is that the Christian thing to do?Its not a "whim" but a deeply held religious belief.
The kind of thing that is protected by our constitution.
Remember, Gay-Marriage is a doctrine of the radical Episcopalianists and other off beat religions as well. They may disagree, but the Religious Left isn't an established church in this country.
You are.And you are here...............for the "nasty asses"?
Yet she took an oath to uphold the law then she violated it. Is that the Christian thing to do?
It's an unalienable right. Only complete idiots rand Russian felatists think the Constitution gives us our rights and isn't simply a limitation on the Federal government.
Doesn’t work like that SkippyI guess Freedom of Religion and the 1st Amendment means nothing in the federal court system nowadays.
There was nothing stopping the Homos in question from going to another county clerk if they really wanted to get Gay-Married. The fact that they insisted on going to a tremendous Christian woman who they knew was opposed to this, shows they were just harassing her and actually committing a Hate Crime.
No one can convince me that these characters don't have deep set hatred for our Judeo-Christian heritage.
Almighty God's law is above man's law.
A deeply held religious belief when she doesn’t honor her own marriage vows?Its not a "whim" but a deeply held religious belief.
Doesn’t work like that Skippy
You accept a job as County Clerk you agree to follow the laws
You don’t get to make up your own
Up until 2015, same-sex marriage was not the law of the land. So, why is it that people can legislate a law to make it legal? The answer is, the law can be changed. Even judges have changed laws such as Roe v. Wade. But, the Constitution requires new Amendments to change it. Not judges nor congress. People still have a Constitutional right to their religious beliefs. The problem here was marriages are issued by the governments. If they were issued by private organizations like Churches and Atheist organizations, then there would be no legal action for gays as they could go to the atheists and get married and Churches could deny to marry people based on any reason.Cool Bro. I saw that story too. I posted it to a previous thread about the whole fiasco following the Obergefell decision and the failed attempt, last year to reopen the case, with Davis as the plaintiff, claiming religious discrimination. Now this is her latest smack down! I love it
Ex-Judge Roy Moore Files Supreme Court Brief to Urge End to Marriage Equality
This is sickening, disgusting and heart breaking ! There is something seriously wrong with people who think that they have the right to control the lives of other people in the name of their distorted and bastardized version of religious liberty. Same sex marriage has been the law of the land...www.usmessageboard.com
Your screed is marginally coherent and smacks of Gish Gallop but I will try to help you.Up until 2015, same-sex marriage was not the law of the land. So, why is it that people can legislate a law to make it legal? The answer is, the law can be changed. Even judges have changed laws such as Roe v. Wade. But, the Constitution requires new Amendments to change it. Not judges nor congress. People still have a Constitutional right to their religious beliefs. The problem here was marriages are issued by the governments. If they were issued by private organizations like Churches and Atheist organizations, then there would be no legal action for gays as they could go to the atheists and get married and Churches could deny to marry people based on any reason.
I don't believe my screed was a screed. It was short and concise. Yours is much longer. And, I'll try to help you as well.Your screed is marginally coherent and smacks of Gish Gallop but I will try to help you.
The Constitution say nothing about how laws can be changed or requiring a constitutional amendment to do so. You assertion that Congress cannot change (or enact )laws is especially absurd. That is what congress does .
As far as the court goes, the principle of judicial review is well established. Read the account of Marbury v Madison and perhaps you will understand- or not
The 14th amendment extended the bill of rights to the states and therefor the power of the federal courts to review state laws-such as bans on same sex marriage- that may run afoul of the Constitution, as did those bans.
Yes people have a constitutional right to their religious beliefs. That means living your life according to those beliefs. It means being free to worship and speak about your beliefs openly without fear of reprisal. IT DOES NOT MEAN telling others how to live and what to believe.
Lastly, marriage is a civil/ government matter and that is not about to change. It is inextricably intertwined with rights, protections and benefits bestowed by the government. There is no support for "throwing the baby out with the bath water" in order to side step the issue of same sex marriage
Your screed was not a screed? Brilliant! I do not need your helpI don't believe my screed was a screed. It was short and concise. Yours is much longer. And, I'll try to help you as well.
You said that the Constitution" can only be changed via the Amendment process, and I proved you wrong. Judges who uphold the rule of law and the principle of equal protection under the law are noy rogue. Anthony Kennedy was hardly a rogue judgeI never said congress cannot change "laws" that it enacted. I said the "Constitution" can only be changed via the Amendment process. Not by congress or rogue judges. Reading comprehension is important when responding dude.
Atheists do not tell others how to live. They do not tell others that they should get gay married or even support gay marriage. They say just leave us aloneIf those with religious convictions are not allowed to "tell" others how to live and believe, then atheists should also not be allowed to "tell" others how to live and believe.
That is complete idiotic horseshit! This is not a theocracy.So, I see no problem in both sides to tell others what to believe or how they should live. Even to the attempt to enact laws with their beliefs as well. If we are to vote our conscience, then this makes perfect sense.
Bans on same sex marriage did exactly thatAs long as they don't overstep the Constitutional rights of individuals from Government tyranny.
Holy shit!! We are done here! You are over the fucking edge!So, Progressive Patriot, it is my constitution right to tell you not to commit homosexual acts because it's a sin against God.
Ya, Kennedy and the other liberal judges have long legislated from the bench. The only way to make changes to the Constitution is by Amendment. All other ways are treasonous. We are not a common law country. We are a Constitutional Republic. At least that's how the country was framed by our founding fathers.You said that the Constitution" can only be changed via the Amendment process, and I proved you wrong. Judges who uphold the rule of law and the principle of equal protection under the law are noy rogue. Anthony Kennedy was hardly a rogue judge
You can keep bleating that nonsense all you want. It does not make it true. So you know that we are a Constitutional Republic! Impressive. Now you just have to learn what that means. And Kennedy was not that liberala, Kennedy and the other liberal judges have long legislated from the bench. The only way to make changes to the Constitution is by Amendment. All other ways are treasonous. We are not a common law country. We are a Constitutional Republic. At least that's how the country was framed by our founding fathers.
