Posted on 09/07/2015 8:03:29 PM PDT by Whenifhow
It’s fully entrenched in government now- the government may in fact take it out of the churches hands before too long- citing ‘hate speech’ and ‘bigotry’ if a church refuses to marry gay couples when ‘ordered to by the courts’
Sound far fetched? So didn’t gay marriage just a few short years ago-
_________
Good points!
She wasn’t conscripted, she was elected to perform an administrative duty which by necessity must be performed impartially, this necessity was understood when the job was accepted.
However, the long standing definition of marriage has been altered. This is unexpected and does pose a religious liberty problem, she may never have sought the position had this new definition been in place.
I think another more straightforward argument is to reject the illegal order of the court.
nm I see it was a court case- didn’t read your whole post before posting my response- thought it was a lawyer simply commenting- it appears the SC has decided there can indeed be a religious test after all
[[this necessity was understood when the job was accepted.
However, the long standing definition of marriage has been altered.]]
That’s a good point- she took her oath BEFORE the SC redefined marriage, and her oath was based on laws already on the books, which she agreed with- then they go and change the law illegally, and now she has to lose her job or comply with a NEW demand that wasn’t present when she signed up for the job?
That’s like changing the goalposts 1/2 way through the game, and expecting everyone to comply with the new ‘rules’ whether they agree or not
There is no reason to retreat and every reason to attack.
There are three reasons:
1) A retreat means marriage has no meaning, we must accept “marriage” being any grouping of persons without regard to their age, number, or consanguinity. Obvious consequences are polygamy, incest, child marriage, and pedophilia - all of which are socially destructive.
2) Allowing the USSC to alter the well established definition of a word opens Pandora’s Box, there is unlimited chaos if this is allowed.
3) Allowing the USSC to dictate what a State law shall be is wholly extra-Constitutional. It renders them dictators.
This is just me, if I were a clerk: I wouldn't have my name preprinted on anything. I wouldn't use a document that has a preprinted name which is not my own. I wouldn't use anyone else's rubber stamp.
If Kim is not allowing ANY type of marriage to go through, then she should be fired or quit her job. I'm having a hard time finding any compassion for her. She works for the government.
Thanks.
Wasn’t planning to retreat, standing for our beliefs is imperative.
I don’t mean to direct anything at you. I think we need to support and encourage each other, sometimes I get a little intense on that.
No it was not a liberal judge ruling. I am just unclear how it applies/ doesn’t apply in the Kenntucky case. It was something I heard discussed on FOX ... but wasn’t sure if what those guys were talking about was really correct.
I have to admit to not watching much FOX news. The news Barbies get on my last nerve.
It is a hot topic. No doubt about it.
Encouragement received!
It was not altered. It was VOIDED. There is legally no definition of the term "marriage" in Kentucky.
How can you issue a "marriage" license when there is no legal definition of the word?
“voided” only by USSC alteration of the word’s definition.
But let’s not quibble. The USSC does not have the authority to dictate what a State law *shall* be. They are not legislators.
No they voided every statute that was in contradiction to their definition of the word. They did not "alter" anything. Marriage has never been defined in same sex terms anywhere in the history of the world until the last decade.
They pulled an unconstitutional definition out of their asses and said that any state's laws which did not conform to that definition are void (having no legal effect).
There may be a legitimate Art IV basis for the USSC declaration that “there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character”, although I am not convinced. This would strike Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.045 Same-sex marriage in another jurisdiction void and unenforceable, but it does not touch other provisions of Kentucky’s marriage statutes, for example Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.020(1)(d) Marriage is prohibited and void between members of the same sex.
That photo is inappropriate for this discussion because Kim is the one stopping all marriages. Civilians are following her orders.
When I go into a government office, I do not expect to be turned away because of my color, religion or whatever. It is supposed to be a “neutral” ground. I go there because I need a something legal.
Here’s something to ponder. Kim is a Christian and acts upon her beliefs. What if next she decides not to allow Buddhists or Muslims to marry?
They have no authority to do so.
Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan have brought disrepute on the court. They have acted as legislators, an act infinitely beyond the authority of the Court. They have sown chaos. They all need to be impeached for their lawlessness, abuse of power, and violation of their Oath. States must defend their people from this illegitimate diktat.
The idea of a deputy is one who is acting under the delegated authority of someone else. So the deputy clerk is a legal extension of Kim Davis. That's why her name is on the forms. It is still by her authority the licenses are being granted.
Furthermore, she has an obligation to resist evil, within the sphere of authority God has granted her at this moment in time. It is what is called the doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate, formulated during the Reformation in Germany. Basically, no human law can trump God's law, such that no matter how high the authority issuing the corrupt law, lower authorities are obligated to use what power they have to fight back, up to and including defiance.
For example, if a law were passed tomorrow which said killing bald men was legal, we would all be under obligation to resist that law, agreed? But why? Because we all know under the principles of natural law, baldness is not a condition that justifies taking a human life.
Law is always ultimately grounded in some moral principle. If that moral principle is sound, the law has moral authority. If that principle is depraved, those who fear God more than men must resist it, and yes, even when it affects others within their sphere of authority.
Peace,
SR
See post 22.
> Here’s something to ponder. Kim is a Christian and acts upon her beliefs. What if next she decides not to allow Buddhists or Muslims to marry?
That would be a violation of law. Again, see post 22.
The difference here is the definition of marriage, understood for millennia to be a union of opposite genders, has been decreed to be something else.
Perhaps you think that this radical new definition is no problem and people should just follow orders?
As county clerk her name is on the licenses no matter who issues them which she feels says she's approving. I see her point. What's she's asking for is her name to be taken off such licenses.
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.