Kentucky clerk won't interfere with gay marriage licenses

[guno]

Looks like this is what just happened to the right wing kooks again , its happened a lot this year

 

[Vigilante]

Jeremiah, you are wrong.

Vigilante does not understand the Constitution and how the legal process works.

Kim backed down, very, very wise.

Yes, simple English is above liberals.... they have to spin it so it fits THEIR agenda... Much of America understands this phenomena!

 

[Vigilante]

Looks like this is what just happened to the right wing kooks again , its happened a lot this year

Guano (bird Shit) tries to make a funny... fails again.... Liberals don't have the mental capacity for humor!

 

[gipper]

Hey Fakey...I think you FINALLY found someone in a position of authority who might actual be part of your mythical Far Right...and she is a Democrat....LOL

 

[easyt65]

Do you have a link or source to her ever saying she wanted to interfere with other Deputy clerks who continued to hand out marriage licenses in their own names? She said they would not be authorized by her - she can question their validity. She hasn't changed her position so do not make it appear as if she has some how backed down. She hasn't. Kim Davis has been consistent on this. She is to be commended for holding her ground.[/QUOTE]

Don't have links, but it was broadcast widely on all the major news programs...[/QUOTE]

You do not have a link but it was broadcast widely by reporters on all the major news programs? And there is not a single article with those words on the internet anywhere? Are you sure?[/QUOTE]

Haven't bothered to look for it, since I watched the news broadcasts and it did not mean enough to me past that to do any further research. It obviously means more to YOU, so I suggest YOU do some research. Let me know what you find....then again...I don't care.

 

[easyt65]

The issue came to the Supreme Court, the issue being legally married in one state did not qualify for federal rights. So the Supreme Court overrode Doma and declared SSM legally the same as straight marriage with Federal equal rights. I am sure it just pisses the conservatives off , you know the ones who hate that there is still SS and Medicare.

I am Conservative, and it doesn't really bother me a bit. I don't CARE! I don't think the Federal Govt shouldn't be in the marriage 'business', though. Who is the Fed Govt to decide for America what the definition of 'marriage' is?

If the govt wants to award certain benefits to coupled who are 'united' then so be it. If they created a procedure / status / union called a 'Civil Union' that resulted in government-provided benefits being awarded and left the term 'marriage' alone there would be NO PROBLEM right now. But Liberals are not satisfied with getting the rights/benefits they want, they want to impose their will on others, force them to accept THEIR definition of things, like Marriage.

Again, want all this to end? Create 'Civil Unions' where same-sex couples can be united as a couple, where they can have anyone who will perform a ceremony for this do so but where you do not FORCE people with religious problems with this to have to perform these ceremonies, and then give these couples whatever govt benefits you want....and leave the definition of 'traditional marriage' alone...and all this bickering and fighting would be over.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Do you have a link or source to her ever saying she wanted to interfere with other Deputy clerks who continued to hand out marriage licenses in their own names? She said they would not be authorized by her - she can question their validity. She hasn't changed her position so do not make it appear as if she has some how backed down. She hasn't. Kim Davis has been consistent on this. She is to be commended for holding her ground.

Don't have links, but it was broadcast widely on all the major news programs...[/QUOTE]

You do not have a link but it was broadcast widely by reporters on all the major news programs? And there is not a single article with those words on the internet anywhere? Are you sure?[/QUOTE]

Haven't bothered to look for it, since I watched the news broadcasts and it did not mean enough to me past that to do any further research. It obviously means more to YOU, so I suggest YOU do some research. Let me know what you find....then again...I don't care.[/QUOTE]

It would be using wisdom to fact check such things when you are not able to find a shred of evidence on the internet that would support someone's "opinion" as "fact" (before you post). Rather than to destroy your own credibility.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

The issue came to the Supreme Court, the issue being legally married in one state did not qualify for federal rights. So the Supreme Court overrode Doma and declared SSM legally the same as straight marriage with Federal equal rights. I am sure it just pisses the conservatives off , you know the ones who hate that there is still SS and Medicare.

I am Conservative, and it doesn't really bother me a bit. I don't CARE! I don't think the Federal Govt shouldn't be in the marriage 'business', though. Who is the Fed Govt to decide for America what the definition of 'marriage' is?

If the govt wants to award certain benefits to coupled who are 'united' then so be it. If they created a procedure / status / union called a 'Civil Union' that resulted in government-provided benefits being awarded and left the term 'marriage' alone there would be NO PROBLEM right now. But Liberals are not satisfied with getting the rights/benefits they want, they want to impose their will on others, force them to accept THEIR definition of things, like Marriage.

Again, want all this to end? Create 'Civil Unions' where same-sex couples can be united as a couple, where they can have anyone who will perform a ceremony for this do so but where you do not FORCE people with religious problems with this to have to perform these ceremonies, and then give these couples whatever govt benefits you want....and leave the definition of 'traditional marriage' alone...and all this bickering and fighting would be over.

Then you are not a Conservative. Saying you are one does not make it so.

 

[easyt65]

SS is something completely different....what started out as a FORCED Retirement/Investment plan for Americans has become a d@mn PONZI scheme. For example, all of MY money is gone because the Fed Govt, deciding all that money was THEIRS, has spent MY money. My kids are putting money into SS for ME now...as if it will be there when it come time for ME to get back any part of MY money.

If anyone thinks SS is so great, boy have I got a deal for you - I am going to give you the opportunity for you to make a 2nd retirement plan just as good! Whoever is interested, here is how it's going to work:

You and I will go to the bank & start up a joint savings account. YOU will have money automatically deducted from your pay and put into the account every paycheck. YOU can never touch the money in this account....but I can. I will determine at what age I will start giving you back a percentage (that I set) of your money back each month. At any time I can change that age higher if I want. When you die, all that money still in your account goes to ME, not your family, next of kin, or anyone else.

Sounds great, right?! If you think this is so great, I encourage anyone interested in giving me a shout so we can start this up. LOL!

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

"... she said she decided not to interfere with deputy clerks who will continue to hand out the marriage licenses in Rowan County, but Davis declared they would not be authorized by her and she questioned their validity."

Is a marriage legal if you never had a valid license?

Do you have a link or source to her ever saying she wanted to interfere with other Deputy clerks who continued to hand out marriage licenses in their own names? She said they would not be authorized by her - she can question their validity. She hasn't changed her position so do not make it appear as if she has some how backed down. She hasn't. Kim Davis has been consistent on this. She is to be commended for holding her ground.

Jeremiah, she did not let her deputies issue marriage certificates. She went to jail. She is now letting her deputies issue marriage certificates.

Of course she backed down, and you saying she has not means either (1) you don't know the story or (2) you are lying or (3) both 1 and 2.

As I understood it she refused to issue the marriage license with her name on it, Starkey. She didn't change her mind about that. The judge changed his mind and released her. She hasn't agreed to anything. That is what I understand about it.

 

[easyt65]

Do you have a link or source to her ever saying she wanted to interfere with other Deputy clerks who continued to hand out marriage licenses in their own names? She said they would not be authorized by her - she can question their validity. She hasn't changed her position so do not make it appear as if she has some how backed down. She hasn't. Kim Davis has been consistent on this. She is to be commended for holding her ground.

Don't have links, but it was broadcast widely on all the major news programs...

You do not have a link but it was broadcast widely by reporters on all the major news programs? And there is not a single article with those words on the internet anywhere? Are you sure?[/QUOTE]

Haven't bothered to look for it, since I watched the news broadcasts and it did not mean enough to me past that to do any further research. It obviously means more to YOU, so I suggest YOU do some research. Let me know what you find....then again...I don't care.[/QUOTE]

It would be using wisdom to fact check such things when you are not able to find a shred of evidence on the internet that would support someone's "opinion" as "fact" (before you post). Rather than to destroy your own credibility.[/QUOTE]
As I said, I didn't and don't CARE! Again, YOU obviously DO so YOU should do some fact checking instead of just whining about how no one else has...

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Do you have a link or source to her ever saying she wanted to interfere with other Deputy clerks who continued to hand out marriage licenses in their own names? She said they would not be authorized by her - she can question their validity. She hasn't changed her position so do not make it appear as if she has some how backed down. She hasn't. Kim Davis has been consistent on this. She is to be commended for holding her ground.

Don't have links, but it was broadcast widely on all the major news programs...

You do not have a link but it was broadcast widely by reporters on all the major news programs? And there is not a single article with those words on the internet anywhere? Are you sure?

Haven't bothered to look for it, since I watched the news broadcasts and it did not mean enough to me past that to do any further research. It obviously means more to YOU, so I suggest YOU do some research. Let me know what you find....then again...I don't care.[/QUOTE]

It would be using wisdom to fact check such things when you are not able to find a shred of evidence on the internet that would support someone's "opinion" as "fact" (before you post). Rather than to destroy your own credibility.[/QUOTE]
As I said, I didn't and don't CARE! Again, YOU obviously DO so YOU should do some fact checking instead of just whining about how no one else has...[/QUOTE]

If you make a statement here and expect others to take it as a fact you should provide a link and a source (when it is requested). :"I heard it on TV" is not a link or a source. If I didn't say welcome to USMB earlier - welcome to USMB. I notice you joined recently.

 

[easyt65]

Then you are not a Conservative. Saying you are one does not make it so.

Oh so now YOU are the one who decides who is and who is NOT a 'Conservative'?! It is hilarious how Liberals TRY to speak for others (and $u@K at it, by the way) and then try to label people, telling them what they are and what they are now, as if they were the experts or one's responsible for making such decisions for us all. I have had enough 'imposed' upon me by the likes such as yourself. YOU call yourself whatever you want, and don't worry about me. LOL...

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Then you are not a Conservative. Saying you are one does not make it so.

Oh so now YOU are the one who decides who is and who is NOT a 'Conservative'?! It is hilarious how Liberals TRY to speak for others (and $u@K at it, by the way) and then try to label people, telling them what they are and what they are now, as if they were the experts or one's responsible for making such decisions for us all. I have had enough 'imposed' upon me by the likes such as yourself. YOU call yourself whatever you want, and don't worry about me. LOL...

Did you or didn't you say you didn't have a problem with gay marriage - you didn't care? If you were a true Conservative? You would.

 

[easyt65]

[
Did you or didn't you say you didn't have a problem with gay marriage - you didn't care? If you were a true Conservative? You would.

AGAIN....

Oh so now YOU are the one who decides who is and who is NOT a 'Conservative'?! It is hilarious how Liberals TRY to speak for others (and $u@K at it, by the way) and then try to label people, telling them what they are and what they are now, as if they were the experts or one's responsible for making such decisions for us all. I have had enough 'imposed' upon me by the likes such as yourself. YOU call yourself whatever you want, and don't worry about me. LOL...

 

[easyt65]

If you make a statement here and expect others to take it as a fact you should provide a link and a source (when it is requested). :"I heard it on TV" is not a link or a source. If I didn't say welcome to USMB earlier - welcome to USMB. I notice you joined recently.

I did not make the original comment about this. You asked SOMEONE if they had a link to this issue. Like a guy walking down the street who sees a car accident and chimes in regarding what he saw, I chimed in to say I had seen the news reports on TV but had seen no articles. I have no 'dog' in this fight, and not trying to prove one 'side' or the other, and I don't care. I just made a random comment.

Sounds like you may have a problem with CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox who reported thi son the news but who either doesn't have a written article on it or does somewhere but many people have not seen it. Take it up with them.

Thanks for the welcome....see ya 'round the pages.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

You didn't make the original comment about it but you answered for them. If you didn't have a dog in the fight you should not have answered for them. Understand?


Saying you are Conservative but do not care about gay marriage is like
Saying you are a Christian but do not care about abortion, gay marriage or siding with the enemy against Israel.

The welcome was sincere. Have a nice day.

 

[JimH52]

I am a Christian, but let me ask a hypothetical question. If a DMV employee is Muslim and refuses to issue licenses to females due to her religion, should she be fired or reassigned? It seems to be a question that is pertinent to religious conscious. What do you think?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

If you make a statement here and expect others to take it as a fact you should provide a link and a source (when it is requested). :"I heard it on TV" is not a link or a source. If I didn't say welcome to USMB earlier - welcome to USMB. I notice you joined recently.

I did not make the original comment about this. You asked SOMEONE if they had a link to this issue. Like a guy walking down the street who sees a car accident and chimes in regarding what he saw, I chimed in to say I had seen the news reports on TV but had seen no articles. I have no 'dog' in this fight, and not trying to prove one 'side' or the other, and I don't care. I just made a random comment.

Sounds like you may have a problem with CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox who reported thi son the news but who either doesn't have a written article on it or does somewhere but many people have not seen it. Take it up with them.

Thanks for the welcome....see ya 'round the pages.

I am a Christian, but let me ask a hypothetical question. If a DMV employee is Muslim and refuses to issue licenses to females due to her religion, should she be fired or reassigned? It seems to be a question that is pertinent to religious conscious. What do you think?

No, because Islam and Sharia law are not the law of the land. You are thinking Saudi Arabia.

Our constitution upholds Kim Davis's right not to issue a same sex marriage license. If our founding fathers were here they would agree with her. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. The Supreme Court had no right to change the definition of marriage in order to appease the Sodomites of this land.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

"The governor, the attorney general and the county attorney have said the licenses are valid. Davis and her attorneys claim otherwise."

This is from the linked report.

The licenses are in fact valid.

Not according to God and His Word.