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......
Just shows the thug government for what it is, a brute beast forcing people to embrace whatever lie it deems "truth". No surprise, as it acts as if people can switch from being male to female or female to male and by golly, we are all supposed to BELIEVE A LIE or else we are haters.
Yeah, we hate falsehood and hate being told that we must embrace and validate that which is contrary to natural order, reason, and biological truths. We are expected to deny blatant reality.
None of that needs to be framed in a religious context and shouldn't be, because doing so conveniently equates ***simply being in one's right mind*** with being a religious zealot/bigot/hater who has the unmitigated gall to impose his religious beliefs upon others.
Beast.gov is fast redefining truth and sane thinking as [subjective and intolerant] religious tenets that have no business existing in the enlightened, modern world.
Already we see how the mobs of impulsive, self-important, drama queen social media zombies rally around half-truth tales of woe (lies), falsely speaking evil of business owners or managers for racism or hate or for being intolerant of whatever we are supposed to tolerate according to the whiners and liars.
Consensus is their lying king. To speak the truth is to threaten the king and his lying kingdom.
Organizing for Destruction
"Pogrom is a Russian word designating an attack, accompanied by destruction, looting of property, murder, and rape, perpetrated by one section of the population against another."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/pogroms.html
Many people in Germany during late 1930s and early 1940s took the same position; either promote the evil or get out of the way. It was a minority that opposed the evil, those with a well-formed conscience that understood God's laws and self-evident truth come before the edicts of men.
In my opinion, the clerk is acting in opposition to a federally adopted and imposed religion.
I suspect a lot of the parishioners will get married in this church and won't even bother with a "marriage license" from the state.
If a Republican is elected president you can bet that he will capitulate on this issue even before he’s inaugurated. Anyone who thinks this can be addressed through a political or legal process is delusional about what exactly this nation has become.
At this point in time I think this woman has a better chance of getting a job working for a Muslim employer than a Christian one. That’s a pathetic (and true) statement about this country, isn’t it?
There is no such thing as a same sex “marriage”. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman for the purpose of bringing children into the world, whether naturally, or by adopting so that child can have a mother and father, as in MAN AND WOMAN. A man and woman constitutes a marriage, not two men or two women, or a man and cat, or woman and dog, or a man and refrigerator. In addition two of the tyrants that ruled on marriage were not eligible to even vote. They had resided over same-sex “marriages”. They were not impartial judges. That alone renders the boneheaded decision as baseless. Did you ever on God’s green earth think you would live to see the day that this country has swayed so far away from God and common sense that sodomy would be placed on the same level as sex between a married man and woman for the purpose of bringing children into the world. This country has gone mad. Thank one man. The sorry SOB sitting in the White House.
My “FAVORITE” Phrase:
“Everybody know.....”
“Consensus is their lying king. To speak the truth is to threaten the king and his lying kingdom.”
The Obama Pogrom..has a “nice” ring to it...
The First Amendment *is* the LAW OF THE LAND. The law that there shall be no religious tests is the law of the land. The constitution of Kentucky is the law of the land. The person who says that homosexual marriage is a right is violating the law of the land.
And far above all that is GOD’s law!
What about all those laws? Which laws supersede?
And where pray tell does the authority to overrule this lady’s conscience come from? From the will of the people? From God? From moral right?
What is law, exactly, anyway? THINK!
That could be a double-edged sword: more than just conservatives peruse this site.
I think four marriages is regarded as immoral by a lot of people, but she would had to have to go a lot farther than that to be on a par with the evil of homosexuality. I don't know that God destroyed any cities as a result of divorces and remarriages. I don't recall any directives to kill divorcees.
So then it is the state sanctioning an adulterous lifestyle and not her. So then wouldn't it be the state sanctioning the same sex "marriage" and not her?
If this were the Nazi state, and the "State" was sanctioning the burning of Jews, her hands would be clean? Is that what you are saying?
Then some day homosexuals will have to answer for their sins. Judgement is His job, not ours.
He burned the Non Homosexuals in the city too. Also look up what happened to the City of Benjamin. Because of a few homosexuals trying to rape a traveler, the Israeli nation killed "everything that draweth breath" in that City. They nearly wiped out the tribe of Benjamin.
Again, the message seems clear. Tolerate them in your midst and you will bring down destruction on yourself.
Besides all that, none of this is about marriage, it is about forcing people to bow to them and their agenda. It is Nazi-like in a lot more ways than people realize. The original Nazis were a homosexual movement too. They were founded in a Homosexual club, and they actively recruited homosexuals into the SS because they were known to be deliberately cruel.
This is an old evil with a new face. It is not what it appears to be.
With religious people I argue from a religious basis. With non-religious people, I argue with objective reasoning and demonstrable evidence.
As the woman's belief in religion is guiding her opinion on the issue, it is worthwhile to understand her religious motivation to grasp how objectionable is participating in this desecration of natural law. It is germane to this topic.
Beast.gov is fast redefining truth and sane thinking as [subjective and intolerant] religious tenets that have no business existing in the enlightened, modern world.
Already we see how the mobs of impulsive, self-important, drama queen social media zombies rally around half-truth tales of woe (lies), falsely speaking evil of business owners or managers for racism or hate or for being intolerant of whatever we are supposed to tolerate according to the whiners and liars.
Consensus is their lying king. To speak the truth is to threaten the king and his lying kingdom. "Pogrom is a Russian word designating an attack, accompanied by destruction, looting of property, murder, and rape, perpetrated by one section of the population against another."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/pogroms.html
No argument from me. This is exactly what I sense is coming. I'm going to ping someone to your message that needs to read it. Especially the "Beast.gov" comment. We have been having a ongoing dispute as to where and when "Beast.Gov" first opened it's eyes.
The underlying fallacy is “if the law doesn’t exclude it, then it must support it.”
As Diamond posted well before: there is no legal authority based on current Kentucky law for this lady to issue the license.
Also, as a side note, if the misnamed “couple” are male - then the precise wording of the law, using the word “where she resides” would explicitly exclude two males pretending holy matrimony.
But, where there is no basis of authority and also no explicit law such as from the Kentucky legislature, there is no authorization to issue a license. There is merely *opinion* that homosexuals ought to be issued a license: this is not law.
Morality is the only place to make a stand. And homosexuality is absolutely immoral.
I noticed that legal technicality when that law was posted, but I recognized immediately that the Gaystapo would simply send in a couple of Lesbians and we would be back to the same impasse.
This isn't about marriage. This is about forcing compliance with Gleichschaltung.
But, where there is no basis of authority and also no explicit law such as from the Kentucky legislature, there is no authorization to issue a license. There is merely *opinion* that homosexuals ought to be issued a license: this is not law.
Nowadays the "law" means just what the Judicial dictators says it means. Being right about what is the "law" won't really help us. They will work a technicality and get around any attempts to thwart their will.
I expect a contempt order at some point, and Federal Marshalls subsequently arresting the woman. If she holds out that long.
Just shows the thug government for what it is, a brute beast forcing people to embrace whatever lie it deems "truth". No surprise, as it acts as if people can switch from being male to female or female to male and by golly, we are all supposed to BELIEVE A LIE or else we are haters.
I am probably just not understanding your argument here so please excuse me if I am way off base. I am sensing an inconsistency of sorts.
If such things as homosexual marriage and "sex-change" are indeed "fake" or "lies" or are untrue or not real, then there would appear to be no need to deal with them at all. There is no need to address things that don't exist.
However, if what you really mean by those terms is that you disagree with things (homosexual marriage, "sex-change") that you acknowledge do exist, then I would suggest that you dispense with those terms (fake, lies, etc.) because I think the use of those terms merely makes your position less coherent.
In other words, if you are saying what I think you are saying, you could put it as follows: "The government has begun using the term 'marriage' in an overly broad fashion, a fashion which would encompass a legal union between two persons of the same sex. I believe that usage amounts to a perversion of the term marriage, a term which necessarily includes only legal unions between two persons of opposite sexes."
I understand why you want to use the terms "lie" and "fake" (all attacks are based upon negative associations), but I think the term "perversion" will be just as effective for your purpose.
But, again, I may be completely missing what you're attempting to do here. If so, I apologize for having wasted your time.
I have no idea what Beast.gov means. If you get a chance, explain it for me.
America still has a Christian coalition , though it`s a bit shaky, there are still some restrictions on abortion, people are still not accepting gay marriage, so America is still the most Christian Country on the planet I believe.
off the reservation?? I just picked up on a liberal trend on some issues in your posts, particularly gay marriage etc
You took issue with a number of people I agreed with on several threads, I just happened to recall your name.
You have a nice day also...btw I am, probably due for another donation to FR...GOOD CALL :)
There is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for any purpose.
If a group of persons wishes to form a commercial venture they must comply the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern corporations. If a group of persons wishes to form a personal conjugal venture they must comply with the laws enacted by the elected legislature, laws which govern marriages. This in no way inhibits or infringes upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights.
In several States citizens have followed the legal procedures required in that State, procedures enacted by the elected legislature, to have placed before the voters a proposed amendment to the State Constitution. To have such a proposed amendment placed on the ballot is no small undertaking, typically requiring a large number of signatures collected in each district. The proposed amendment must then be adopted by the voters, typically with a requirement that 60% or more voters must approve for the amendment to be adopted.
Throughout history in every major society marriage has been between man and woman, or man and women. Now comes a novel definition. No advocate of this novel definition has followed the laws enacted by the elected legislature to have this novel definition incorporated into the laws. Instead they have claimed that they have been deprived of a right.
The advocates of this novel definition have not been deprived of any right.
The advocates of this novel definition are free to avail themselves of the process prescribed by law to change the laws to incorporate this novel description. This in no way inhibits or infringes upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights.
Opinions regarding the definition are immaterial, this is a question of rule of law and directly concerns every Person and State.
This novel definition has been imposed upon Society by small number of persons who abuse the power vested in their Office and exert that power beyond their authority.
Unelected persons beyond control of the People imposing novelties upon Society is tyranny and contrary to the fundamental principles of this country.
Judges are not Legislators. For judges to impose upon society a novel definition, to aid the advocates of the novel definition to obtain what they could not obtain Legislatively is tyrannical and beyond the authority of their Office. The opinion of these judges can and must be ignored.
The obnoxious and unbridled arrogance of the Judicial branch of the Federal government must be checked by the States.
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.