Posted on 09/02/2015 4:29:48 AM PDT by Nextrush
What many people fail to realize is this is not just a religous matter. It's a Constitutional issue. The BRT's (Black Robed Thugs) have subverted the Freedom of Religion. Even the wildest homo freak would and should object to this violation of liberties if they truly support the Constitution.
“That was the whole point of “rendering unto Caesar”.”
Perhaps this might help?
Mark 12 17
“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
2 Corinthians 11
23- Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.
24- Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.
25 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep;
I really can’t get over how far we’ve come when a conservative thinks this is a reasonable position. This would be a reasonable position if one’s epistemology is contemporary culture, but how is one a conservative at all under such circumstances? I think about my professors, how they all listen to NPR. I think, I would believe the way you do too if I listened to NPR.
When you go to the first principals of conservatism, you’d see that j.argese’s position nullifies every conservative principal: you like guns? Well the government says they’re dangerous, so give them to us or we’ll fine or fire you. You like keeping your money? We know what to do with your money better than you. You don’t want insurance? Well SCOTUS said you have but insurance so here’s your fine. You want to go to that church? Well the Human Rights Commission ruled it’s hate speech so we’ve got an approved church over here for you. We DO NOT, under any decent understanding of Christianity or conservative philosophy, have to obey lawless magistrates. We have the duty under Christianity and conservatism to disobey.
Theoretically, yes, she could get both.
I just don’t think that she’ll get jail. As much as a Federal Judge is going to want to compel her compliance with judicial edicts, that same Judge won’t want major escalation and is going to see the PR problems with the imagery of her being cuffed and frogmarched out by Federal Marshals.
Imposing fines is the safe route to take to get the point across while trying to deescalate the situation.
Good riddance.
They won’t go elsewhere to get a certificate; this is their plan. Make an example out of those that won’t kowtow to them, to scare everybody else.
No you are wrong. You could not be more wrong!
The Supreme Court decision did not change Kentucky law, it voided it. The LAW in Kentucky regarding marriage is that in order to get a marriage license the applicant must be two adults of the opposite sex who are not immediately blood related. The Kentucky statute that authorizes the county clerk to issue marriage licenses to anyone does not authorize her to issue a license to same sex couples. If the Supreme Court determined that the Kentucky statute was unconstitutional, then the county clerk cannot issue any marriage license at all. She isn’t. She is currently obeying the law by not issuing licenses because she currently has no authority to do so.
Your position is one that gives the Supreme Court LEGISLATIVE POWER which it does not have. Forcing this clerk to issue marriage licenses is an unconstitutional act. The court has no power to require a county clerk to violate an existing Kentucky Statute and if the statute is void, then it has no power to make up some statute that requires the state to issue marriage licenses in accordance with a void statute.
I get pretty sick and tired of people on this forum saying that this clerk needs to follow the law or quit her job. SHE’S DOING HER JOB!!!! Her job is to follow the statutory law and right now there isn’t one.
Unless and until KENTUCKY passes a law re-authorizing the issuance of marriage licenses, no clerk in Kentucky should be issuing marriage licenses to anyone.
If you disagree, then show me the currently existing statute that authorizes county clerks in Kentucky to issue marriage licenses to anyone.
The problem is not that the clerk is not following the law, THE COURTS ARE MAKING UP THE LAW. THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO!!! If anyone should be quitting their jobs, it is the judges!!!!
You are either willing to fight with us or are against us. Since you are against this brave lady, you sir can go to hell!
We have a Christian/moral duty to civil society. Romans 13 indicates that it’s similar to our duty as parents. When the government is out of control, we must correct it. That’s how our civil government was founded. To go gently to persecution is not God’s will for Americans. We are the government. If persecution is going on, we’re responsible.
Great argument! The same argument could probably apply in all 50 states. So why aren’t other clerks using it?
I understand your point, unfortunately, under our system, the federal law superseded state law.
I think it is time to throw these miserable Judges out of their fatcap Jobs.Thdey are not worth a Tinkers Dam.
Actually, I would have made a very poor NAZI. I don’t have the drone mentality. If she truly was considering her faith along with her career she would have resigned her position, then filed suit.
To rid the land of Obergefell v. Hodges, We the People must exert our sovereign authority through Article V.
There is no other way.
Scotus must be made to know that one of the two powers higher than itself (the other being God) will annually look over their shoulders and overturn illegitimate decisions.
Because most people are willing to just stay under the radar, update their status on Facebook, take selfies, and watch inane TV shows.
I wouldn’t even show up for court. What are they going to do about it? What are the charges?
Who says it was her faith alone that she was considering. Even an atheist or a Godless homo who understands the laws and the Constitution would know that the SCOTUS overstepped their bounds and issued an illegal and unConstitutional order.
Why should she resign? Like some surrender monkey who believes that the State should not be involved in marriage?
You may have heard Rush Limbaugh speak of his father's oratory about what the Founders put on the table to separate from England. That is my only point.
Our local talk radio station is going on about this and ended up doing the typical Alinsky tactic...
They went after her personal life, her marriages, getting “knocked up” (their words) with twins while married to someone else...
And with Bubba lying to the American people, it was just about sex?
Some days the double standard is disgusting....
(1) Better to be found in contempt of a federal court than in contempt of the Supreme Judge of the Universe. I will obey God not man.
(2) The right to freedom of religion was explicitly stated by the Founders in the First Amendment, and takes precedence over a "right" to gay marriage concocted by judges in the last few years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.