Marriage clerk targeted by gays revolts

[mudwhistle]

I guess I'm looking at this going... If you're a Christian Doctor, you don't become an abortionist.

Retire if it's "against your religion" to do the job.

I don't agree with her.... But these folks can go to another county and get a license. She just feels she's going to hell if she gives them the right to do what she feels is a sin.

That is not acceptable.

If she truly has these religious convictions then she can resign and that is the ONLY recourse she should be allowed to ever take. The government cannot force her to marry people that she is religiously convicted not to HOWEVER if that conviction interferes with her official duties as a representative of the government then she can no longer hold that position.

At no time EVER is my government allowed to deny me basic access to my rights using governmental power because of religious convictions. The government is specifically barred from applying religions standards to me.

So she has to quit her job because these activists want to make a statement?

Oh, and the government denies people a lot of their benefits every day. They literally invented the wild-goose chase and giving someone the runaround.

 

[koshergrl]

This clerk isn't denying them their license. She's refusing to be the one to grant it. They can still go elsewhere.

She had no more right to do that than a restaurant who doesn't serve black people has the right to send them somewhere else.

Skin color is not a behavior choice. Why is that so difficult for homo agenda advocates to grasp?

Is it your choice to be attracted to females only?

This is about acting on the choice and forcing concessions based upon that act. Me liking females can make babies. Boys liking boys can't make babies therefore renduring the action personal and moot.

Babies have nothing to do with marriage rights.

"Marriage rights" lololol....

 

[playtime]

A portion?!? She's being egged on by the liberty council.

A portion. Some of her rhetoric is religious. Some of it poltical. With her decrying issues of State sovereignty and Federal power. Which kinda takes the shine off the 'God's Authority' angle.

Her multiple divorces takes care of her 'God's Authority' angle.

My wife has been married 4 times. Every one of them she found out was a wife-beater......except me.

She still believes strongly in God.

But Biblically, she is still married to her first husband, unless there was adultery by him & Biblically speaking, she has committed adultery with her subsequent marriages.

I think she's been forgiven. That's the nice thing about Jesus. He washes your sins away if you repent n' stuff.

I only said that because of the pick & choose thumpers... such as the woman from Kentucky.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

So she has to quit her job because these activists want to make a statement?
.

She has to quit her job because she is refusing to do her job...........

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

The Bible does not mean doodle squat to me...the Constitution I support..........

 

[Syriusly]

I've never understood the idea that the founding fathers were beyond reproach in the creation of the Constitution. The document was a deeply flawed compromise born on the necessity that motivated its creation. It had huge problems, but was the best they could do at the time.

We've improved upon their work.

They should be ashamed of themselves. Because they kicked the can down the road on slavery because of political expedience, the fledgling nation they created almost ripped itself apart and killed hundreds of thousands. A document that didn't extend freedom to all people is deeply flawed.

I think they did what they could. Remember, the viability of the US as a nation was very much in doubt at the time. With the British more than happy to exploit any perceived weakness to take back the territory they lost in the revolutionary war. There were issues of rebellions, riots, and inter state bickering that were genuinely threatening our nation's existence. Many of the founding fathers expected the American experiment to collapse in their lifetimes.

Faced with these realities, I can understand why they focused on practical issues rather than more ideological ones.

They didn't even try to address the issue and it nearly tore the country apart. Political cowardice often leads to bloody wars. But I was agreeing with you that the Constitution in its nascent form was woefully inadequate in protecting everyone's rights.

The issue was an obvious deal breaker during the age. There is no way that any semblance of national unity could be formed and slavery abolished in the 1780s. Even those founders that strongly supported a more centralized government while opposing slavery in principle didn't touch this political third rail.

In every real sense, there was no viable way to get both a nation that included the 13 colonies AND abolish slavery. With Britian circling in the waters like a hungry shark, any reduction in size would have been seen as weakness. If not for the majority body, at least for the minority.

They doubled down on national viability rather than purity of principle. Had they not, in all likelyhood the US would have failed as a nation.

. Had Lincoln's wishes prevailed, we would have shipped every one of them back and become a better, stronger nation because of it. Wise man, that Lincoln. I see why you guys love him so much.

Actually Lincoln had floated a plan of voluntary resettlement in Africa and was shocked to find out that American blacks who had been here for multiple generations were no more interested in returning to Africa than Lincoln was in returning to Europe.

 

[LittleNipper]

This clerk isn't denying them their license. She's refusing to be the one to grant it. They can still go elsewhere.

She had no more right to do that than a restaurant who doesn't serve black people has the right to send them somewhere else.

Skin color is not a behavior choice. Why is that so difficult for homo agenda advocates to grasp?

Is it your choice to be attracted to females only?

This is about acting on the choice and forcing concessions based upon that act. Me liking females can make babies. Boys liking boys can't make babies therefore renduring the action personal and moot.

Infertility won't force any concession no matter how many times it's acted out. should infertile couple be denied marriage because no children will be produced?

Were Abraham and Sarah infertile? How about Samson's parents and those of Isaac? And how do Mary's Aunt Elizabeth and Uncle Zacharias have John the Baptist? It would seem that even the infertile have a chance at conception (regardless of age).
infertile

 

[WorldWatcher]

Therefore marriage laws refer to procreation requirements...............nowhere.

Technically not true, there are marriage laws that refer to procreation.

However, those law require in some cases that the couple not be able to procreate, which is just the opposite of what RoshawnMarkwees was trying to say.



>>>>

 

[AvgGuyIA]

This county clerk is like the sole standing Spartan of the original 300 blocking the invasion of perverts forcing their morality on the rest of us.

Or the opposite, stopping people getting Human Rights and stopping the US Constitution from being practiced.

No gays had human rights violations. We all can't get what we want. I want all your money, but the law prevents me. Dig?

That's a false equivalency. You can't 'have someone else's money' because that would be unlawful to just take it, no matter how much you want to.

The 'ban' on same sex marriage has been decided & declared unlawful. So as American citizens, they are being denied their civil rights under the 14th Amendment.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Under that denial, in some states gays cannot make legal, medical, & financial decisions along with or for their partner. Nor can they file taxes together. Nor can they have access to a sick or dying partner if that partner's family says otherwise. Nor can they have the right to refuse to testify against their partner in a court of law. In some states, they cannot 'adopt' their partner's child, even if that child is also biologically theirs.

Homo marriage violates the doctrine of original intent. .

Not according to the Supreme Court- and almost every judge leading up to the Supreme Court.

People are getting married now regardless of the gender of their spouse. Or in the case of this one county- no one is getting a marriage license because of the religious beliefs of one person.

Everyone in her county is being treated equally. No one gets a license. Problem solved.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The County Clerk in her position of office has no authority to pass judgment on the moral standing of those who apply for certificates.

A father walks in with his biological daughter. You lose.

False equivalency. There are factual medical reasons why that would never be legal to do. Will you be using the 'next a man will want to marry his dog' rwnj talking point analogy next? Let me stop you before you do:

An animal cannot make a consenting decision to do something like that, so that stupid comparison isn't worth anymore debate.

You can't marry your goat only because some SCOTUS judges havent ruled that you can --- yet. It's coming. Don't doubt me

Since you haven't been correct about anything else- why would anyone actually believe you?

Another Conservative unable to understand the difference between adults choosing to marry each other- and an adult wanting to marry someone- or something- who cannot give consent.

What is it about Conservatives and consent?

Ha ha. You declare yourself the winner? Doesn't work that way. I am right. If a SCOTUS says a goat can marry, then it will be. According to your side, they have the final say. No matter the perverted reasoning such as dudes getting married to each other. Same thing. The people don't want it but your SCOTUS said yes.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Or the opposite, stopping people getting Human Rights and stopping the US Constitution from being practiced.

No gays had human rights violations. We all can't get what we want. I want all your money, but the law prevents me. Dig?

That's a false equivalency. You can't 'have someone else's money' because that would be unlawful to just take it, no matter how much you want to.

The 'ban' on same sex marriage has been decided & declared unlawful. So as American citizens, they are being denied their civil rights under the 14th Amendment.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Under that denial, in some states gays cannot make legal, medical, & financial decisions along with or for their partner. Nor can they file taxes together. Nor can they have access to a sick or dying partner if that partner's family says otherwise. Nor can they have the right to refuse to testify against their partner in a court of law. In some states, they cannot 'adopt' their partner's child, even if that child is also biologically theirs.

Homo marriage violates the doctrine of original intent. Gays are allowed to marry as straights are allowed -- to the opposite sex. It has been since our founding as everyone knows damn well. No gay is discriminated against. You liberals can use that amendment to justify fathers marrying their daughters. Pediphiles to have sex with babies. You marrying your goat. Laugh all you want but this decision has opened up a slippery slope that a majority of decent Americans find disturbing. We won't be silenced! We'll show you for who you really are until enough people finally wake up to this perverted agenda hell bent to destroy our society and put a stop to it.

Our founding fathers not only thought that blacks were only 3/5 of a person - they owned them as property. Sometimes, they were just plain wrong, however much you want to spew your hatred... the times they are a changin'.

NEENER NEENER.

So you would rather have had the South have more power in the Federal Government?
That is what would have happened if they did not have the 3/5th ruling.

. Bingo! I told him he didn't know jack shit.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The County Clerk in her position of office has no authority to pass judgment on the moral standing of those who apply for certificates.

A father walks in with his biological daughter. You lose.

No, stupid. That's law.

Her moral judgement is still irrelevant in that situation.

It's law until SCOTUS says differently. Slippery slope. We need to get back to Godly rulings.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The County Clerk in her position of office has no authority to pass judgment on the moral standing of those who apply for certificates.

A father walks in with his biological daughter. You lose.

No, stupid. That's law.

Her moral judgement is still irrelevant in that situation.

It's law until SCOTUS says differently. Slippery slope. We need to get back to Godly rulings.

You big government progressive statists are always relying on activist judges to carry on your far right reactionary anti-America agendas.

 

[Seawytch]

I guess I'm looking at this going... If you're a Christian Doctor, you don't become an abortionist.

Retire if it's "against your religion" to do the job.

I don't agree with her.... But these folks can go to another county and get a license. She just feels she's going to hell if she gives them the right to do what she feels is a sin.

That is not acceptable.

If she truly has these religious convictions then she can resign and that is the ONLY recourse she should be allowed to ever take. The government cannot force her to marry people that she is religiously convicted not to HOWEVER if that conviction interferes with her official duties as a representative of the government then she can no longer hold that position.

At no time EVER is my government allowed to deny me basic access to my rights using governmental power because of religious convictions. The government is specifically barred from applying religions standards to me.

So she has to quit her job because these activists want to make a statement?

Oh, and the government denies people a lot of their benefits every day. They literally invented the wild-goose chase and giving someone the runaround.

No. She should resign because, according to her, she can no longer perform the requirements of her job. When you are a public servant, you don't get to tell the public to just "go somewhere else".

 

[AvgGuyIA]

And? She is doing it right.

She isn't doing her job. Again, don't be shocked when she is likely held in contempt.

Homos don't have the authority or the right to order particular people to marry them. Sorry. Find a homo clerk.

No one is asking Kim Davis to marry them. Issuing marriage licenses to qualified applicants is not the same thing as marrying them. The applicants take their licenses and go elsewhere for the ceremony.

That really is irrelevant as well though.

Even if they were being married by her she would STILL be required to perform her duties because she is a GOVERNMNT representative.

These same people would flip the fuck out if she was a die hard Muslim that refused to issue licenses to Christians because they were infidels. You have religious freedom but THE GOVERNMNT does not have the power to enforce religious tenants and therefore those acting on the governments behalf do no get to enforce their religious tenants in the execution of their official duties.

There is a clear difference in official governmental duties and other private/public integrations. You cannot have religious freedom AND allow government officials to enforce religious edict. The two concepts are not possible.

And that's the rub. The freedom to practice your religion is NOT the power to force people follow your religion using government authority. Your comments center on the exact issue: that she's a government employee exercising government power. She doesn't get to say who has access to the law. The law does.

She's exceeded her authority. It is not her role to set religious tests of her own for the public's use of government services.

She isn't forcing gays to follow her religion. No one is forced to convert, unlike your side that forces her to bow down to your secular humanism religion.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Or the opposite, stopping people getting Human Rights and stopping the US Constitution from being practiced.

No gays had human rights violations. We all can't get what we want. I want all your money, but the law prevents me. Dig?

That's a false equivalency. You can't 'have someone else's money' because that would be unlawful to just take it, no matter how much you want to.

The 'ban' on same sex marriage has been decided & declared unlawful. So as American citizens, they are being denied their civil rights under the 14th Amendment.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Under that denial, in some states gays cannot make legal, medical, & financial decisions along with or for their partner. Nor can they file taxes together. Nor can they have access to a sick or dying partner if that partner's family says otherwise. Nor can they have the right to refuse to testify against their partner in a court of law. In some states, they cannot 'adopt' their partner's child, even if that child is also biologically theirs.

Homo marriage violates the doctrine of original intent. Gays are allowed to marry as straights are allowed -- to the opposite sex. It has been since our founding as everyone knows damn well. No gay is discriminated against. You liberals can use that amendment to justify fathers marrying their daughters. Pediphiles to have sex with babies. You marrying your goat. Laugh all you want but this decision has opened up a slippery slope that a majority of decent Americans find disturbing. We won't be silenced! We'll show you for who you really are until enough people finally wake up to this perverted agenda hell bent to destroy our society and put a stop to it.

Our founding fathers not only thought that blacks were only 3/5 of a person - they owned them as property. Sometimes, they were just plain wrong, however much you want to spew your hatred... the times they are a changin'.

NEENER NEENER.

I've never understood the idea that the founding fathers were beyond reproach in the creation of the Constitution. The document was a deeply flawed compromise born on the necessity that motivated its creation. It had huge problems, but was the best they could do at the time.

We've improved upon their work.

Or the opposite, stopping people getting Human Rights and stopping the US Constitution from being practiced.

No gays had human rights violations. We all can't get what we want. I want all your money, but the law prevents me. Dig?

That's a false equivalency. You can't 'have someone else's money' because that would be unlawful to just take it, no matter how much you want to.

The 'ban' on same sex marriage has been decided & declared unlawful. So as American citizens, they are being denied their civil rights under the 14th Amendment.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Under that denial, in some states gays cannot make legal, medical, & financial decisions along with or for their partner. Nor can they file taxes together. Nor can they have access to a sick or dying partner if that partner's family says otherwise. Nor can they have the right to refuse to testify against their partner in a court of law. In some states, they cannot 'adopt' their partner's child, even if that child is also biologically theirs.

Homo marriage violates the doctrine of original intent. Gays are allowed to marry as straights are allowed -- to the opposite sex. It has been since our founding as everyone knows damn well. No gay is discriminated against. You liberals can use that amendment to justify fathers marrying their daughters. Pediphiles to have sex with babies. You marrying your goat. Laugh all you want but this decision has opened up a slippery slope that a majority of decent Americans find disturbing. We won't be silenced! We'll show you for who you really are until enough people finally wake up to this perverted agenda hell bent to destroy our society and put a stop to it.

Our founding fathers not only thought that blacks were only 3/5 of a person - they owned them as property. Sometimes, they were just plain wrong, however much you want to spew your hatred... the times they are a changin'.

NEENER NEENER.

I've never understood the idea that the founding fathers were beyond reproach in the creation of the Constitution. The document was a deeply flawed compromise born on the necessity that motivated its creation. It had huge problems, but was the best they could do at the time.

We've improved upon their work.

Improved on? The political system is corrupt and leads to two main parties who control everything, have been bought by big money and do the bidding of big money. The people's voice has disappeared under the weight of this corruption. I hardly think this is an improvement!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

This is what happens when we elect a president that seats activist judges that rule from the bench. I figure eventually acceptance will creep in and this stuff will quit happening. But for now, expect some pushback.​

A gay couple has to be able to go in there and come out with a license. This isn't like a bakery situation, where they could tell the shop owner to piss off and go across the street.

I haven't followed the story, but I wonder if there's someone else in the office who could do this.

If not, she just doesn't have a choice in this case.
.

she is the county clerk. I think she sets the rules for her county. I could be wrong since i'm not sure how they work things in Kentucky.

.i hope she's UNion and can't be fired! Priceless. LOL

 

[JakeStarkey]

She can die, she can resign, she can be defeated, or she can be impeached.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

She had no more right to do that than a restaurant who doesn't serve black people has the right to send them somewhere else.

Skin color is not a behavior choice. Why is that so difficult for homo agenda advocates to grasp?

Is it your choice to be attracted to females only?

This is about acting on the choice and forcing concessions based upon that act. Me liking females can make babies. Boys liking boys can't make babies therefore renduring the action personal and moot.

what are you blathering about?

THE COURT RULED. capisce?

Th court allowed Jim Crow and The Dred Scott decision, too. Bad law is bad law and can and should be changed.

Our installed SCOTUS will override this courts decision too. It will go on the trash heap like Jim Crow.