Kim Davis Is Rosa Parks

[David_42]

But it is the very legality of such marriages that Davis disputes.

Wrong she recommended they just go to the next county over to get a marriage license. She recognizes the legality of same-sex Civil Marriage, she just didn't want to do her job to issue them a license.

The going to another county to get a marriage license was something she raised at trial -->> http://www.aclu-ky.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Bunning-Rowan-Ruling-81215.pdf


>>>>

I don't see that as her recognizing the legality of homosexual "marriage" at all. I see it as her recognizing that the next county over will comply with the illegal court ruling. She, however, does NOT wish to comply with it. Which I can understand, since it is illegal.

Unfortunately the court order NOT being illegal is what throws a monkey wrench into your argument.

Don't try to bring facts into this, I was having so much fun with the bigoted idiots.

 

[EriktheRed]

...

Yes.

We've seen this faux equivalency and moral relativism before, in attempting (and failing) to compare resistance to integration, versus resistance to the legitimizing and mainstreaming of sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality).

Just want to remind you once more that you lost on this one. However you choose to call it, it's legal and accepted by the majority of the population.

IOW, this toothpaste is not going back in the tube.

 

[EriktheRed]

But it is the very legality of such marriages that Davis disputes.

Wrong she recommended they just go to the next county over to get a marriage license. She recognizes the legality of same-sex Civil Marriage, she just didn't want to do her job to issue them a license.

The going to another county to get a marriage license was something she raised at trial -->> http://www.aclu-ky.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Bunning-Rowan-Ruling-81215.pdf


>>>>

I don't see that as her recognizing the legality of homosexual "marriage" at all. I see it as her recognizing that the next county over will comply with the illegal court ruling. She, however, does NOT wish to comply with it. Which I can understand, since it is illegal.

Unfortunately the court order NOT being illegal is what throws a monkey wrench into your argument.

Don't try to bring facts into this, I was having so much fun with the bigoted idiots.

Doesn't matter, she's gonna keep being stupid anyway so you can keep right on enjoying it.

 

[Roudy]

The problem arises when you call it "marriage certificate" which is based on the traditional religious based definition of marriage.

The religious based definition of marriage is and has always been between a man and a woman. It's a total mockery of religion when you have a rabbi or priest conducting a marriage between two men or two women. It's so ridiculous its funny and I find myself laughing when I see footage of it on the news.

Perhaps if you called the certificate for gays by a different name like a "union certificate", even though the legal rights it carries are equivalent to marriage? You simply cannot redefine the religious definition of marriage, which is what gays and the radical left want to do.

At least you and most other conservatives are consistent in your ignorance of the law.

The problem arises when you confuse religious marriage ritual with marriage contract law, where the former has nothing whatsoever to do with the latter, and where religious marriage ritual is not subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

What is subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence is how the states administer their laws, including marriage law, where 'separate but equal' is just as repugnant to the Constitution today as it was in 1954.

Your advocacy of a 'gay specific' marriage license would therefore be ruled un-Constitutional.

As much as you'd like to confuse the two, the origins of MARRIAGE is based on religion and has always been between a MAN and WOMAN until you leftist nutjobs decided to change its definition so as to not offend homosexuals.

Look, I'm not against homosexuals shacking up and having the same rights AND OBLIGATIONS of married couples, but to call call it "marriage" is offensive and a mockery of religion.

In fact this is exactly what your bullshitter president Oblahblah said he believed in when he was running for president in 2008:

 

[Esmeralda]

...Kim Davis was trying to introduce christian sharia law to her county...

There is no such thing as Christian Sharia Law.

It's a metaphor, stupid. And it is very appropriate, if you can 'get' the metaphor. Which, limited as you are, seems unlikely.

Metaphor isn't defined as "made-up piece of shit". Just FYI.

Obviously you don't like the comparison, but it is a metaphor whether you agree with the comparison or not. LOL All you showed by your post is your ignorance of rhetorical techniques. Pathetic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Kim Davis is the Rosa Parks of ignorant, dumb chicks.

The funniest part in all this is that KIM DAVIS IS A DEMOCRAT.

So what? Kentucky is full of registered Democrats who still think it's 1963.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

As much as you'd like to confuse the two, the origins of MARRIAGE is based on religion and has always been between a MAN and WOMAN until you leftist nutjobs decided to change its definition so as to not offend homosexuals.

Look, I'm not against homosexuals shacking up and having the same rights AND OBLIGATIONS of married couples, but to call call it "marriage" is offensive and a mockery of religion.

The origins of marriage are not based on religion.

Calling it 'marriage' is 'offensive'? Well, let's go with the oft repeated RW'er talking point to respond to that...

...you don't have the right not to be offended.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Most uninformed overnight post: "The Democrats have always been to the political left of the Republicans in this country." Whigs, Dems from 1856 to 1964. Cecilie, read.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

If Kim Davis is Rosa Parks then Dylan Roof is Martin Luther King....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here is the appropriate historical analogy:

Kim Davis is C. Clyde Brittain

From the article
A History Lesson for the Kentucky Clerk Refusing to Grant Marriage Licenses...

"...the Loving ruling meant all anti-miscegenation laws in the United States were invalidated. At the time, more than a dozen states had such laws on the books. But three years later, when Sgt. Louis Voyer (who was white) and Phyllis Bett (who was black) tried to get married in Alabama, they were refused a license by Probate Judge C. Clyde Brittain, on the basis that Alabama law would have made such a license criminal. In fact, Alabama law still made Voyer and Bett’s coupledom criminal in itself, and the Alabama constitution actively barred state lawmakers from legalizing marriage between “any white person and a Negro, or descendant of a Negro.”

http://time.com/4018494/kentucky-marriage-clerk-loving-virginia/

Try to make your analogies accurate.

 

[playtime]

But it is the very legality of such marriages that Davis disputes.

Wrong she recommended they just go to the next county over to get a marriage license. She recognizes the legality of same-sex Civil Marriage, she just didn't want to do her job to issue them a license.

The going to another county to get a marriage license was something she raised at trial -->> http://www.aclu-ky.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Bunning-Rowan-Ruling-81215.pdf


>>>>

I don't see that as her recognizing the legality of homosexual "marriage" at all. I see it as her recognizing that the next county over will comply with the illegal court ruling. She, however, does NOT wish to comply with it. Which I can understand, since it is illegal.

Wow. That takes a special kind of stupid to rationalize what she did was not worthy of reprimand.

I'll thank you not to put your ignorant, inferior words into my mouth. Just because you want to believe I said "not worthy of reprimand" doesn't obligate me to accept that position as mine or defend it.

When you're ready to comment on what I DID say, let me know.

Um, how about her 'WISHING' not to comply & you understanding that since it is an 'illegal' law ( which, same sex marriage IS LEGAL NOW, in the eyes of the law--- which IS the only thing that matters)

that she can just ignore doing her job (that she was elected to do) based on her belief/opinion & apparently yours (because you 'understand' why she did ignore her duty).... because the next county over can do it...

Gee, can the drug addict in the alley, rob someone for their next fix, ignore the law & WISHES not to comply if he thinks that the laws regarding those acts 'on the books' are illegal?

It's the same principle...just worded differently.

Ya.... like I said - stupid.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Kim Davis has been divorced four times. Where were her religious principles when she was committing serial adultery?

For someone who claims to hate people putting their religious beliefs onto others, you certainly are quick to impose your ideas about what Christians do and should believe onto Ms. Davis.

Not just divorced, married 4 times, has a bastard kid, had a baby by one man while married to another - things that her own bible says deserves being stoned to death.

She's a hypocrite who believes in the Sanctity of Marriage and Marriage and Marriage and Marriage.

She is more than free to believe whatever she wants. That doesn't mean she doesn't have to do her job.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

If Kim Davis is Rosa Parks then Dylan Roof is Martin Luther King....

This ^^


Davis is the whites who didn't want blacks to sit in the front of the bus.

Just as kkk types want to deny basic civil rights to blacks, so do Davis and her hate groups want to deny basic civil rights to gays.

The gays are more like Rosa Parks than Davis.

 

[playtime]

CECILIE1200 SAID:

"Ms. Davis is adhering to the duly- and legally-passed law on the books from the CORRECT legal authorities on the subject of Kentucky marriage licenses - which is what she swore to do when she took office - and refusing to comply with a law invented out of whole cloth by a non-legislative body on a level of government that has no purview over marriage licenses whatsoever."

This in particular is ignorant and wrong.

Obergefell is the progeny of over 100 years of 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting government from seeking to disadvantage a class of persons through force of law based solely on who they are. (See, e.g., Civil Rights Cases (1883))

Consequently, there is nothing 'invented' about the settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence followed by the Obergefell Court to invalidate state measures hostile to the rights of gay Americans and repugnant to the Constitution.

Moreover, that states and local jurisdictions, along with state officers and elected officials, are subject to Federal law, the Federal Constitution and its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts has been settled and accepted since the advent of the Foundation Era – from McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) to Cooper v. Aaron (1958), the original intent and understanding of the Framers as expressed and codified in Article VI that decisions of the Supreme Court are the supreme law of the land, as with 14th Amendment jurisprudence, is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

Do I even need to say, "What a giant load of horseshit"?

The fact that the courts have behaved incorrectly and illegally on a repeated basis over time does not make it any more okay to continue doing so. Also, the court is not exactly the best reference as to the correctness and legality of its own behavior. Duh.

Furthermore, the constant misstatement of "federal supremacy" to mean that the federal government has jurisdiction to meddle in anything it wants, rendering lower governments irrelevant, is wearing incredibly thin, even if one is kindly inclined to ignore that leftists like you are too frigging stupid to know any better.

Go buy a clue.

Actually the Establishment Clause is pretty clear. She can believe how she wants, what she wants, & where she wants- EXCEPT within the scope of a government service. She violated that clause... as an agent of the State, within the perimeters of her job description. Not only was she imposing her religious ideology upon couples that she deemed were not equal in HER eyes, she imposed that same ideology unto her staff.

What she did was wrong, & no matter what she WISHES... or how you UNDERSTAND it... does not matter. Get over it.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Even the taking of an oath by Kim Davis in order to assume her current office is prohibited by the doctrines of her Church ....how come she gets to commit sins..........

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Kim Davis is the driver of the bus that Rose Parks rode. She has pulled off to the side of the road and is refusing to drive until the negro moves back to where she belongs...............

 

[playtime]

Name a liberal who was against Rosa Parks by name.

Democrat son...don't try and split hairs now because I got you dead to rights.

Right, there are/were plenty of racist conservative democrats back then, I'm not contesting that. But you also said liberals and progressives...so, start naming names.

democrat/liberal/progressive is same damn thing. They have just changed who they hate now.

That's factually incorrect. Strom Thurmond was a conservative and a Democrat. The Democrats were in control in the South during the civil war but it's Republicans who keep that vial dream alive.

Now, pull the stick out and name a prominent liberal who persecuted Rosa Parks.

Oh, good God.

The Democrats have always been to the political left of the Republicans in this country. Always. They are the exact same people and party, ideologically speaking, that they always have been, although their need to constantly push the envelope and blur boundary lines has taken them to previously unimagined extremes lately.

No amount of playing with and redefining terms is ever going to change the fact that you own every nasty thing the Democrat Party has ever done, and always will. It's yours. Suck it up, and if you're really that ashamed of the past,maybe you should reflect on what that means about being associated with that party now.

The POG has shifted so far to the right since the days of Eisenhower, that there are hardly (if any at all) fiscal conservatives left... the shift from fiscal 'compassionate' conservatives... to social 'CHRISTIAN' ones is astounding. And that religious zealotry has two faces... 'small less intrusive government' is the battle cry - unless it means staying out of the bedroom of consenting adults or a female's uterus.

 

[playtime]

Kim Davis isn't Rosa Parks, she's these guys:

or one of these...

 

[playtime]

Kim Davis is the Rosa Parks of ignorant, dumb chicks.

The funniest part in all this is that KIM DAVIS IS A DEMOCRAT.

So was Joe Lieberman.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Kim Davis isn't Rosa Parks, she's these guys:

or one of these...

whoa! lol

First lines of the KKK platform:

The Knights ' Party Platform

The recognition that America was founded as a Christian nation.

As James Madison, known as the "Chief Architect of the Constitution" stated; " We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves to control ourselves to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."