I would love to spout: "LIKE H3LL...NEVER GIVE UP, NEVER GIVE IN"
But, sadly, I am seeing more and more so-called conservatives caving on this issue.
I'm even, scandalously, seeing some FReepers giving up and either claiming that following man's law is more important than following God's law...or saying that it doesn't matter. And without sniffing ozone as a result.
We are descending to Gomorrah. How long will it be before brimstone follows?
This is all unnecessary. There are tons of folks who would do this marriage. The gay pair just need to go to the next clerk.
Isn’t the remedy to just tell the gays to drive to the next clerk/ the next bakery shop/ the next wedding chapel?
Why is the remedy not that?
The Supreme Court's ruling was clearly unconstitutional. The members voting for same sex marriage do not know the difference between men and women, and created their interpretation of the Constitution to somehow support something that violates natural law.
I do not know how this abominable ruling can stand. It was clearly wrong.
We shall see how it plays out because the Judge thinks that he can change her mind by giving her a "time out" and somehow accept that men can "marry" men and women can "marry" women. It does not compute; it will never compute!
No, Pelley. This isn’t going to go away. It’s not gone away for centuries so what makes you think the world is going to win this time?
The Obsolete man
The excuse was obsolescence. The truth was that it was about his belief.
The false gods on the Supreme Court weren’t following man’s law or legal precedence when they ushered in their edict this summer. There is no law anymore, only tyranny.
Or it could be the first hint of real battle to come!
If a Muslim was working in a grocery store and refused to sell bacon, and was discharged, would we declare that her 1st Amendment rights were being violated?
I know Levin's position: activist judge...judiciary not the final word...
The law is wrong. Is this a case where we should follow King's guidance regarding unlawful laws?
You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, it is rather strange and paradoxical to find us consciously breaking laws. One may well ask, "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "An unjust law is no law at all." (Letter from a Birmingham Jail)
Seriously, please help me see the difference.
We are truly DOOMED.
CBS’s Pelley: Clerk Going to Jail Possibly ‘the Last Front in a Losing Battle To Retain Southern Democrats...
Sorry, CBS; same-sex “marriage” is a modern-day invention.
Not long now...
Actually, the last front will be Jesus’ return. And we will continue to lose up to that point. Then we “win”.
Yeah. The left is licking its chops as it prepares to eliminate the last vestiges of Christianity.
Look up the word “Smarmy” in your Webster’s dictionary.
You’ll find Scott Pelley’s face.
What CBS’s Pelley is really saying, “hoohrah! the constitution is dead” as this woman goes to jail for defending her religious beliefs. Sure enough the next shoe to fall will be the baker who refuses to bake a cake. These judges are out of control, they let felons and illegals roam free to prey on innocent folks, and toss folks in jail for religious beliefs.
Last stand? Guess smarty pants Perez has not heard of the state of North Carolina.
The New First Amendment to the US Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, except Congress may prohibit the free exercise of religion for public officials and business enterprises when their beliefs conflict with official duties or the ordinary course of their commerce, and upon objection made by a public official or business enterprise, proscribe the free exercise of religion with jail and/or fines as a contempt of court, or barring from public office or from engaging in commerce in the United States of America; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
While that language is not in the text, the Courts see it, nonetheless.
What specific law has Davis actually broken by not issuing homosexual licenses?
By issuing no legitimate licenses (heterosexual), she is not performing her job, but there is no law providing for homosexual marriage in KY and the SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction in this area because of the habitually ignored 10th amendment. The 14th amendment does not provide accommodation for homosexual marriage. SCOTUS is doing what they always do; they inject something into the constitution that is simply not there nor was it the intention of the authors of the constitution and amendments for such an interpretation to be possible. Does anyone think that the 4th amendment authors intended that it be used for a perverted interpretation legalizing abortion or that the 14th provides for homosexual marriage?
We really have to revisit Marbury vs. Madison and the whole premise of supreme court supremacy in areas that they have no or limited jurisdiction.
Marriage redefinition was NOT “legalized.” I refuse to repeat the fake talking points.