Posted on 09/01/2015 5:55:47 AM PDT by Nextrush
It happened in Kentucky minutes ago with Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis explaining to a gay couple why she would not give them a marriage license....
Cameras were there......
Not to be graphic, but does anyone think that the two dudes who were denied a "marriage license" aren't going to sodomize each other tomorrow just because someone doesn't consider them "married?"
True, however, it will not be her name endorsing the immorality which would be the case of any license issued from her office. An open and public endorsement of the act.
I responded to your many false claims made on this thread.
There are many Jewish laws about marriage, including restrictions. Are there civil laws regarding marriage to a Kohen? Is the FBI going to arrest people if they break those laws?
BTW, one can’t simply pick and choose which of God’s laws to follow if one adheres to Judaism.
“And you’re wrong that “the Founders” intended the US to be a Christian state. “
Really?
George Washington prayed with his troops.
He even had a church built at the New Windsor contonement called the Temple of Light.
Hmm....
Show how homosexuality is a race or creed.
We will wait.
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States..
EOT, do you know WHY the Founders put that in there?
Hint, in jolly old England at the time, if the King was Catholic, you had to be also, if the King was Protestant, you had to be also.. to compel people to go against their religious beliefs goes against the bill of rights and constitutes a religious test to hold office.
Your "point" is invalid.
Hello.
Welcome to FR.
Do you have a comment that addresses this point?
You could say "No it isn't", and offer an alternative theory, but going into side issues is of no value in helping us understand what we are seeing.
"You err."
"The US is a secular republic,..."
"However, the Declaration, unlike the Constitution, is not a part of US law. It’s purely an inspirational document."
"And you’re wrong that “the Founders” intended the US to be a Christian state."
And there's a lot more, but we won't belabor the point.
The Declaration of Independence set forth the principles on which the founding of the nation and subsequent actions and laws were based which is, unequivocally Natural Law. And Natural Law as you should know has its basis in the notion of law being inherent in the nature of man as an expression of his relationship to (and worshipful emulation of) his Creator. Hence Jefferson's pointed reference to that Creator in the Preamble.
The Jefferson authored Declaration sets the moral and legal basis for the establishment of US Laws to follow. He further states that when governments become destructive of those ends the people have the right to alter and abolish those governments. (And that's exactly what we have here - a government that has taken a form destructive to securing the pre-existing rights of the Christian majority.)
The judge in this case even acknowledged this fact and gave tacit admission to the Clerk's claim of religious protection founded in Natural Law when he issued a statement in which he asserted his court to be above the Natural Law, thus demonstrating his incompetence and unfitness for the bench.
The Establishment Clause presupposes a nation of churchgoers and merely protects each of them from having the right to choose the church of their choice from being abridged. It exists not to establish secularism, but rather to eliminate the dominance of Calvinist over Baptist or Anglican over Lutheran or Catholic or Puritan.
The tolerance for secularism in our society is the same tolerance shown toward other non-Christian faiths such as Hindus, Sikhs and that special religion from whence Christianity emanated, Judaism. All of these are tolerated in our society in as much as they can coexist without being destructive to the essentially Christian fabric of the nation. In the case of Judaism, being the progenitor of Christianity, it even serves to enhance that fabric.
To support your tenuous position you have alluded to (nay, tried to channel) Madison and Jefferson, but you fail to make mention of John Adams who famously said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
And there's one other issue here. This Clerk is an elected official of Kentucky. Kentucky law defines marriage as one man and one woman. In addition, in 2013 Kentucky passed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, based on the model suggested in the Supreme Court decision that declared the Federal RFRA unconstitutional. (The SCOTUS opinion said that such acts would be perfectly legal if enacted by the several states.) And that is exactly what Kentucky has done.
Nice try, Troll.
Judges are not senators.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3333009/posts
Oh look, a troll.
And a post and run one at that.
Funny, what do you think about that?
It might be a two-fer-one deal today as there are two people making trollish statements in thread.
One at post 292.
And our buddy Eater of Toast who thinks that homosexuals are a race creed or religion. (Post 259.. still waiting for him to show how that is so.)
There’s also one I’m not certain about... but this thread does deserve extra special attention.
FLASH FLASH FLASH
T O P S E C R E T VIKINGKITTEN
DTG: 041124R SEP 2015
SU: ZOT
REF: POST #292 (TARGET: FORMERREPUBLICANT)
1. VKHQ HAS CONFIRMED TROLL SIGHTING THIS DTG, THIS LOCATION.
2. FR MOD COMMAND CENTER HAS EXECUTED LEVEL-FIVE ZORCH-ON-TARGET (ZOT).
3. ALL ELEMENTS SHALL EXECUTE OPTION “DOGPILE” UPON RECEIPT OF THIS MESSAGE. WEAPONS FREE, OPLAN CRISPYCRUNCH.
4. ALL ELEMENTS ARE DIRECTED TO FULL ASSET COMMITMENT TO POST-STRIKE KEGGER UPON THE TARGET’S REMAINS. VKQH WILL COORDINATE HOOTERS WAITRESS AND CHIPPENDALES AS GENDER DICTATES.
5. CHALLENGE/PASSWORD: SKIMPY/BIKINI.
6. WE ARE YOUR OVERLORDS. VKHQ SENDS.
EOM EOM EOM
#NNNNN
That’s all cool and stuff, but that opinion says no Christian can be placed in said position. Salary does not trump free speech, nor conscientious objection on religious grounds. At least before we entered into soviet styled governance and instead of resisting we go along to get along and fold like a deck of cards.
Charles, at 35, explains it to us, on rather good authority.
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.