Kim Davis Is Rosa Parks

[playtime]

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.

Separate, but equal.... right?

 

[playtime]

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.

the problem arises when bigots use their offices to deny rights to others.

She isn't a bigot. She's a religious person who believes her religion does not allow her to marry two men, which is true. This isn't what she signed up for. Call it something other than marriage and let her out of jail.

She signed up to be an agent of the State, ie the government... a government that abides by the Constitution... which is a living document & has always allowed amendments to be added.... such as the 14th which includes equal protection under the law. And as an agent working on behalf of a secular government, she is duty bound to carry out what is required of her in such a capacity without imposing personal ideologies. She clearly violated that oath & was in direct dereliction of said duties.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

Oh, spare me. I get so tired of you delusional leftists. Just because you call yourselves something doesn't make it true, and the faster you all grow up and stop believing you can just wish the world different, the better for everyone.

Calling yourself liberal doesn't make you liberal. Ditto for "progressive". And don't even freaking get me STARTED on people who think they can change genetics by changing labels. They don't even make medication for the level of "out-of-touch-with-reality" that afflicts the left these days.

What? Huh?

Name a liberal who sided themselves against Rosa Parks and you respond back with "calling yourself a liberal doesn't make you a liberal"?

I have no obligation to respond to your posts as though I'm accepting your premises as fact. I'm responding to your asinine pretense that you can try to claim every historical person you think is admirable as "part of your side", and fob everyone you think is heinous off onto your political opponents by some redefining sleight of hand. I have no intention of playing your game with you.

I was told that liberals opposed Rosa Parks. I simply asked this person to name one. That hasn't happened. Maybe you can jump in and be productive rather than whatever it is you're doing.

Still stuck at "not playing your shell game".

Rosa Parks was opposed by the Democrats of the day. Democrats were and are the liberals to the Republicans' conservatives on the American political spectrum, if those are the terms one wishes to use. Nothing is going to change that.

The politics of you and your ilk are nasty, and always have been. Own it. Case closed.

Then naming a prominent liberal of the day shouldn't be a problem. Like, I can name Strom Thurmond, a conservative who was against desegregation. He also just happened to be a Democrat back in the day, nothing has ever been liberal about him.

 

[playtime]

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."

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.

Oh, spare me. I get so tired of you delusional leftists. Just because you call yourselves something doesn't make it true, and the faster you all grow up and stop believing you can just wish the world different, the better for everyone.

Calling yourself liberal doesn't make you liberal. Ditto for "progressive". And don't even freaking get me STARTED on people who think they can change genetics by changing labels. They don't even make medication for the level of "out-of-touch-with-reality" that afflicts the left these days.

What? Huh?

Name a liberal who sided themselves against Rosa Parks and you respond back with "calling yourself a liberal doesn't make you a liberal"?

I have no obligation to respond to your posts as though I'm accepting your premises as fact. I'm responding to your asinine pretense that you can try to claim every historical person you think is admirable as "part of your side", and fob everyone you think is heinous off onto your political opponents by some redefining sleight of hand. I have no intention of playing your game with you.

I was told that liberals opposed Rosa Parks. I simply asked this person to name one. That hasn't happened. Maybe you can jump in and be productive rather than whatever it is you're doing.

Still stuck at "not playing your shell game".

Rosa Parks was opposed by the Democrats of the day. Democrats were and are the liberals to the Republicans' conservatives on the American political spectrum, if those are the terms one wishes to use. Nothing is going to change that.

The politics of you and your ilk are nasty, and always have been. Own it. Case closed.

What? Huh?

Name a liberal who sided themselves against Rosa Parks and you respond back with "calling yourself a liberal doesn't make you a liberal"?

I have no obligation to respond to your posts as though I'm accepting your premises as fact. I'm responding to your asinine pretense that you can try to claim every historical person you think is admirable as "part of your side", and fob everyone you think is heinous off onto your political opponents by some redefining sleight of hand. I have no intention of playing your game with you.

I was told that liberals opposed Rosa Parks. I simply asked this person to name one. That hasn't happened. Maybe you can jump in and be productive rather than whatever it is you're doing.

Still stuck at "not playing your shell game".

Rosa Parks was opposed by the Democrats of the day. Democrats were and are the liberals to the Republicans' conservatives on the American political spectrum, if those are the terms one wishes to use. Nothing is going to change that.

The politics of you and your ilk are nasty, and always have been. Own it. Case closed.

You do realize both political parties drastically changed over time, right? The republicans aren't like the republicans in the 50's, same goes for democrats.

Pretty sure I just got done say that that is a horseshit game of lies that I'm not planning to play.

They didn't trade places, and while they've moved farther toward their respective extremes on the spectrum, they still are who they've always been.

I'm not thinking in 2012... the year after Davis decided to become' Christian'.... these things- claiming to be Christian, were Democrats or Progressive or Liberals...

 

[playtime]

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:

WHICH religion? Who gets to decide WHICH religion? The Constitution, under the Establishment Clause cannot establish a state sanctioned religion... therefore all religious factors must be null & void under the 14th amendment that includes equal protection UNDER THE LAW. And Obama amended his personal beliefs, just like the SC decided that equal protection under law meant black people too & now those pesky American homogays as well.

Period. End of discussion.

 

[Flash]

[

No it isn't the same or even similar. l.

You don't see the similarities because you are not looking at it rationally. Talk about low information but you haz it. You are biased because you think the government has the right to curtail freedom of religion when it fits into the progressive agenda of the filthy ass Left.

There are three dimensions to this case that shows the stupidity of the Left.

The first is the fact that the Moon Bats wants her arrested because she didn't carry out the requirements of the federal court ruling, which they claim has the effect of law. As been mentioned several times in this thread the Moon Bats are very selective about this because they give Obama a pass on not enforcing the immigration laws of this country. If Kim Davis belongs in jail then so does Obama.

The second is Kim Davis's Constitutional right to exercise freedom of religion and not be oppressed by the government by incarceration. The fact that he Commonwealth of Kentucky says in their constitution that marriage is defined as "being between a man and a woman" puts her on very solid grounds in carrying out the duties of her elected office (reference below) by not issuing license to the queers.

The third problem the Moon Bats have is the authority of the filthy ass Federal government to force states to curtail Constitutional guaranteed rights like freedom of religion. There is a strong argument that the Feds have no right to force states to adhere to the requirements of Federal court approved social activism. The Feds are using the Commerce Clause to assert authority and many legal scholars think that is illegal to do.

The Federal judges have the ability to curtail freedom because they have the thugs working for them that will kill you or throw you in jail if you don't do what they say but that doesn't mean that it is legal or right.

Kim Davis is a flawed person that is standing up for the rights of all Americans to live in a country where the Federal government does not control every aspect of our lives. That is no different than Rosa Parks (also flawed) standing up to the local government trying to curtail her rights.

Kim Davis is hero to all Americans even though you Moon Bats hate her because she opposes your filthy queer agenda. There were many people that also hated Rosa Parks. You Moon bats are no different.


Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1[1] of 2004, is an amendment to the Kentucky Constitution that makes it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 75% of the voters.[2]

The text of the amendment states:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.[3]

 

[HappyJoy]

1. Obama wasn't found in contempt in any courtroom. (This is also has nothing to do with this case)

2. Kim Davis IS the government in this case and her religion does not allow her the opportunity to discriminate against others. If she can't take the heat then she gets pushed out of the kitchen. Just like a Jew cannot deny marriage licenses to Christians by spewing something vile about religious freedom.

3. The Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of our laws, federal or state. This is nothing new.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stupidist statement of the morning (far worse than citizenal): You are biased because you think the government has the right to curtail freedom of religion when it fits into the progressive agenda of the filthy ass Left.

Kim Davis was denying access to government services, period.

 

[Camp]

[

No it isn't the same or even similar. l.

You don't see the similarities because you are not looking at it rationally. Talk about low information but you haz it. You are biased because you think the government has the right to curtail freedom of religion when it fits into the progressive agenda of the filthy ass Left.

There are three dimensions to this case that shows the stupidity of the Left.

The first is the fact that the Moon Bats wants her arrested because she didn't carry out the requirements of the federal court ruling, which they claim has the effect of law. As been mentioned several times in this thread the Moon Bats are very selective about this because they give Obama a pass on not enforcing the immigration laws of this country. If Kim Davis belongs in jail then so does Obama.

The second is Kim Davis's Constitutional right to exercise freedom of religion and not be oppressed by the government by incarceration. The fact that he Commonwealth of Kentucky says in their constitution that marriage is defined as "being between a man and a woman" puts her on very solid grounds in carrying out the duties of her elected office (reference below) by not issuing license to the queers.

The third problem the Moon Bats have is the authority of the filthy ass Federal government to force states to curtail Constitutional guaranteed rights like freedom of religion. There is a strong argument that the Feds have no right to force states to adhere to the requirements of Federal court approved social activism. The Feds are using the Commerce Clause to assert authority and many legal scholars think that is illegal to do.

The Federal judges have the ability to curtail freedom because they have the thugs working for them that will kill you or throw you in jail if you don't do what they say but that doesn't mean that it is legal or right.

Kim Davis is a flawed person that is standing up for the rights of all Americans to live in a country where the Federal government does not control every aspect of our lives. That is no different than Rosa Parks (also flawed) standing up to the local government trying to curtail her rights.

Kim Davis is hero to all Americans even though you Moon Bats hate her because she opposes your filthy queer agenda. There were many people that also hated Rosa Parks. You Moon bats are no different.


Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 1[1] of 2004, is an amendment to the Kentucky Constitution that makes it unconstitutional for the state to recognize or perform same-sex marriages or civil unions. The referendum was approved by 75% of the voters.[2]

The text of the amendment states:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.[3]

You need to demand the money back from the law school you attended. They ripped you off. While you are at it, you should think about a suite against your high school civics teacher.
The first amendments forbids the government from establishing a religion. The county clerk represents the government. By making her demands she is establishing a specific religion that citizens are required to follow. But that is not the issue. The issue is that everyone is required to follow laws and work within the system to make changes. No one is allowed to defend their actions by claiming God or the devil made them do something and a state constitutional amendment does not strike down or override a SCOTUS ruling.

 

[Kondor3]

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.

True.

It's not illegal.

It's merely wrong, and not in the best interests of the Republic and its People.

The matter will almost certainly be revisited, sometime after January 20, 2017.

 

[Roudy]

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.

Including this guy?

 

[Kondor3]

...

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.

Well, it's as slimy as toothpaste, I'll give you that much.

But, as to 'losing'... you confuse the loss of a battle with the loss of a war... and this war is, truly, just beginning.

The legitimizing and mainstreaming of sexual deviancy and perversion (homosexuality) is not in the long-term interests of The People nor the Republic.

Much as the individual states are now finding ways to counteract Roe v. Wade, 40 years later, long after one would have thought that the Opposition had given up, so, too, will America and its People find ways to counteract the recent spat of judicial rulings in favor of the Gay Mafia, even if takes decades or generations, which, it probably will not.

But... you(r side) does good service to the Republic, by adopting a smug, arrogant, overconfident attitude, that it's a "done deal", and a "lock", and permanent.

The longer you remain complacent and asleep, the sooner, and the easier, the inevitable and massive Reaction will be, and the more likely it will be, to catch you by surprise.

If the Nation retains the GOP in the House and Senate, and also gives the White House to the GOP, in 2016, you can expect this to begin to reset on January 20, 2017.

 

[Kondor3]

Including this guy?

He was against it, before he was for it.

Must've visited the Waffle House somewhere along the way.

That, or was lying his ass off, to get into office in the first place, which, come to think of it...

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Including this guy?

No, that's the guy who's smart enough to change his "beliefs" when they aren't popular anymore

 

[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.

the problem arises when bigots use their offices to deny rights to others.

She isn't a bigot. She's a religious person who believes her religion does not allow her to marry two men, which is true. This isn't what she signed up for. Call it something other than marriage and let her out of jail.

She signed up to be an agent of the State, ie the government... a government that abides by the Constitution... which is a living document & has always allowed amendments to be added.... such as the 14th which includes equal protection under the law. And as an agent working on behalf of a secular government, she is duty bound to carry out what is required of her in such a capacity without imposing personal ideologies. She clearly violated that oath & was in direct dereliction of said duties.

She signed up to be an agent of of the government, and then the government proceeded change a tenement of her faith. I think the right compromise would be to issue a certificate with a different name which carries equal weight under law. If two gays then want to have a marriage ceremony with a priest and call it a marriage then that's their choice.

 

[Roudy]

Including this guy?

He was against it, before he was for it.

Must've visited the Waffle House somewhere along the way.

That, or was lying his ass off, to get into office in the first place, which, come to think of it...

Or could be he was deceiving the public as to who he was and his actual beliefs in order to get elected.

 

[Roudy]

Including this guy?

No, that's the guy who's smart enough to change his "beliefs" when they aren't popular anymore

So his beliefs are based on what's "popular"?

 

[Roudy]

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

or one of these...

 

[Kondor3]

...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.

There is no such thing as Christian Sharia Law... even as a metaphorical analogy, the comparison does not hold up under a closer scrutiny.

All it does is to conjure up disingenuous comparisons between the still-extant, primitive, medieval religious legal code under which much of the domains of Islam are still in thrall, with the post-Reformation, well-integrated (with secular life) vague and flexible moral code-set attributable to Christianity, and to piss off Christians, whom find such tactics reprehensible.

But, as I said, you silly bastards of the Loony Left, go right on serving-up verbiage like 'Christian Sharia Law' and 'Christian Taliban' - pigeon-holing your fellow countrymen and those who share your ethnic and cultural roots into the same cubby-holes as the medieval Fundamentalist Muslims, and see where that gets you, in terms of support for the Gay Agenda.

Sooner or later you'll over-do it, shoot yourselves in the foot once too often, and then, stupidly, wonder why nobody supports you any longer, and bemoan the Reaction that's coming, and you won't have a clue as to why you've suffered the setbacks that you are going to suffer.

We can see the first ghostly whispers of this Reaction, in the outpouring of support for Chick-Fil-A, and other victims of legal assault by the Gay Mafia and its fellow travelers.

That's just the tip of the iceberg.

The very tip.

Continued use of phrases like "Christian Sharia Law" and "Christian Taliban" are sure to accelerate and intensify that Reaction.

But, it is the Fate of Men (and LGBT critters) that they do not learn from the past, and arrogantly continue to employ tactics that yield short-term gain, but overpowering long-term loss.

As for my own miniscule part in this, as it pertains to the use of such verbiage, so long as it is challenged or countered every once in a while, that's enough.

 

[Kondor3]

...