Posted on 07/03/2015 6:40:26 AM PDT by Kaslin
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) Four Kentucky couples are suing a clerk who is refusing to issue gay-marriage licenses or any marriage licenses at all following the U.S. Supreme Court decision that same-sex couples have a legal right to marry.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky filed a federal lawsuit against Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis on Thursday afternoon on behalf of two homosexual and two heterosexual couples, all of whom were turned away when they tried to get marriage licenses from Davis' office this week.
Davis has said that her Christian beliefs prevented her from complying with the Supreme Court decision, so she decided to issue no more marriage licenses to any couple, gay or straight. She could not be reached Thursday after the lawsuit was filed. Her office was already closed and she did not respond to an email.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Absolutely unbelievable!!!
Well she is treating all couples equally.
Our county Judge Advocate has stated he will no longer perform marriages, period. Symbolic gesture, but it still matters IMO. Our local 3 day a week Louisville Courier wannabe is ecstatic over the SCOTUS assault on the Constitution.
Wonder what happens when one of these cases goes all the way to scrotus? Scrotus pimping gay marriage vs the first Admentment?
Is Mitch McConnell listed as the plaintiff?
oops
Judge Advocate = Judge Executive
What First Amendment?
Huh?
Ping
Very simple. If the law requires you, as a government official, to do something against your conscience, you should resign and then work to change the law.
He is probably referring to Freedom of Religion
Whatever became of “You are further to declare that we hold sacred the rights of conscience, and may promise to the whole people , solemnly in our name, the free and undisturbed exercise of their religion. And that the civil rights and the right to hold office were to be extended to persons of any Christian denomination.”” see note 51 p. 559 America’s God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations Wm. J. Federer editor.When the government breaks Covenant we have a duty to resist and oppose them.
Darn double post
The fatal flaw in your argument is that our constitutions do not empower courts to make or veto laws.
The weirdness in this line of events began in Massachusetts. When the court ordered the legislature to change to embrace “gay marriage,” it should have just looked at the court like “You’re crazy.” That’s not how courts even worked with respect to laws before then — they could void laws but not require other laws. But nothing was there to void.
But then in came Mitt, white flag at the ready. Who acted as if the law had been there, even the court hadn’t ordered Mitt to do a thing at that point.
. 99.99% of the world believe marriage is between one man and one woman. The problem is that the SCOTUS has perverted the meaning of marriage and our derelict Congress has allowed them to create a law, which they have no right/authority to do. The First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
The Constitution does not say freedom of religion and freedom of speech is limited to the walls of the church. These rights apply regardless of one's location or vocation.
The fact is that the SCOTUS has become politicized and has been creating laws illegally.
Every time a Christian is forbidden his 1st amendment rights, he should find a constitutional respecting judge - and sue the prosecuting party into oblivion.
We need to get rid of government sanctioned marriage. This is ridiculous.
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.