Posted on 09/07/2015 7:26:19 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
she’s in jail because she defied a federal judge’s court order.
a court order is not the law it is one judge’s opinion
She's in jail because she defied a federal judge's order to ignore her religious beliefs.
As far as the law is concerned, marriage is a civil contract. You don’t actually think that a County clerk is a priest of some religion, do you? Or that the legislature is a synod of Bishops? They’re not. The state’s interest lies solely in the legalities of the civil relationship between the spouses.
The law is undeniable, which is why the SCOTUS ruled as it did: The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States from denying the equal protection (or benefit) of the State’s laws to all residents of the State. The Amendment was clearly ratified in order to prevent the Southern States from granting privileges to one group that they denied to others, and from protecting one group but not protecting another. And that’s precisely what offering the legal benefits of marriage to one group but not to another does: It offers benefits to one group, but not to another, and gives legal protection to one group, but not to another.
State sanctioned sodomy...
Homosexual marriage law is/was always about forcing the citizens to support and sanction sodomy.
Yeah, but the Gaystapo claims she IS harming them.
Huh. Not giving them the piece of paper they’re demanding is somehow preventing butt sex?
Which equals harm?
In fact, not having the paper in no way prevents them from fornicating, while obtaining it in no way uplifts the nature of what they do.
Remember when some people claimed they didn’t need a silly piece of paper to prove their love?
Ironic. SMH.
Define "group" then we can have discussion.
Pedophiles?
Polygamists?
Bestialists?
Sado-masochists
Sure these are all "groups", and they've been around for centuries. Doing their thing.
Marriage has never meant anything other than man/woman.
Because someone simply WANTS something doesn't mean they are able to redefine everyone else's beliefs.
That's a two-edged sword. You just cut yourself with it.
No one will help her. No one helped the Army officer when he refused to deploy because of OBs fake birth certificate.
A quick skim of your page is puzzling indeed.
You don’t seem very conservative, while in some of your prior posts you seem to display outright hostility to the Constitution.
On this issue of sodomy you insist that Kim Davis somehow violated the “law” by refusing to validate sodomy with a state marriage license.
You say that following one’s religious beliefs while performing official duties, somehow violates the “law”. In fact, the Constitution plainly forbids the prohibition of religious expression, but that is the least of it.
Those arguing against you are saying, rightly, that the “law” you claim Ms.Davis violated, was fabricated hocus-pocus, out of thin air, by SCOTUS, and is thus no law at all (in fact it’s an interpretation, an opinion, with no mandate for unquestioning obedience) while the Kentucky law defining marriage as between one man and one woman, was enacted appropriately by state legislature and is binding.
There is nothing in the Constitution (which you seem to disdain and would apparently prefer to discard anyway) that allows SCOTUS to usurp the Congress or the states legislatures’ role in writing laws; in fact, the Constitution expressly forbids this. Nothing in the Constitution speaks to marriage at all, nor allows any judge to redefine it, by simply saying sodomy is equal to marriage, thus shall it be.
In fact, in state after state, the lawful authority of voters and legislatures have been disregarded by local authorities and unlawfully swept away by activist judges acting solo, or perhaps under financial coercion or threat of blackmail. These are the people, not Kim Davis, who have decided to disregard laws they don’t like.
Neither SCOTUS nor any judge has any authority to redefine marriage, just as they had no authority to declare a child’s life as a mother’s chattel, disposable at her convenience.
Which group is being denied? I have a feeling you've been drinking the Leftist koolaid.
What law did the Supreme Court uphold with the Supreme Courts ruling on a court case for the marriage of same sex couples? Did not justice kennedy that religious liberties would not be infringed upon? Seems to be the Supreme Court needs to revisit the outcome of its actions because the religious liberties are being infringed upon. But no I am not a lawyer, just a lowly pastor whom question the religious liberty to be taken away so something that is not natural to become a law , just to appease a minority population that irregardless of naural law would live together in sin. the issue is not the marriage itself - it is the right to the issue of spousal benefits - insurance, retirement and so forth.
Conway is a lousy little GOP-E weasel.
Agreed. This should have already happened.
Where, at least, his her church family?
Idiot.
Not just about the Queen, about the both the fact that she left her husband without good reason and was shacking of consensually with his brother. I guess that is called incestuous adultery.
Total garbage. Marriage is an Establishment of religion. A state can do contracts it has no authority over marriage which is and always was an establishment of religion. As far as her being a priests that’s also garbage. She has the absolute right to express her faith. The issue here is as it always has been the cultural Marxists forcing Christians to act against their beliefs. The USSC ruled the way they did because it had Ginsberg and Sotomyer on it both who were by law not supposed to hear that case because of their own direct conflict of interest in it. There is nothing in the US Constitution that allowed that court to say anything about marriage. So no its not law involved here, its Agenda.
That kind of hostage rescue often ends with the hostage dead.
Under a true rule of law? Yes, she wins easily.
But under a true rule of law, sodomite unions would never have been SCOTUS approved, either.
I was addressing the law too. A habeas corpus petition can raise any manner of rationale for release. I haven’t found the appeal motion. News report say it merely amends her previous argument, which makes me think that it does not raise the argument I suggested - that incarceration via contempt is fruitless from the start, and is therefore an inappropriate remedy.
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.