God's words created us. They have sustaining, enduring and overwhelming bearing on everything.
Posted on 09/01/2015 6:12:07 PM PDT by thetallguy24
Lol. They sure have a hell of a bluff going on.
She probably would have turned to a different clerk and gotten her license. As the homo provocateurs could do but refuse to.
Carly needs to quit her job running for prez! Who is she telling someone to do their job or quit! Carly is Fired in my opinion in this presidential race, but of course someone throws her a bone or two to keep her in! Carly is about Carly...smirky and condescending!I don’t like her and have no idea how she gets any numbers!
Well, according to the Supreme court, if they have marriage laws, they have gay marriage laws.
That’s the part that folks do not understand. The State cannot say otherwise.
Like it or not, its the way the rules are.
She doesn’t have to agree with it. She just has to do her job.
Both were incorrect, in my opinion. But both were also upheld by the people who decide those things.
You and I do not get to vote.
Its not a democracy, no matter what they tell us.
RE: But both were also upheld by the people who decide those things.
Both were upheld by a bare majority of people who decide those things. We are going to allow 5 people dictate for us how we ought to live?
Dredd Scott was considered UNCONSTITUTIONAL and people were not BOUND to obey it.
For a law to be binding on people, it has to be PASSED BY THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES of the people.
Neither the state of Kentucky nor the Congress of the United states has passed a law legalizing same-sex marriage.
For the U.S. Supreme Court to justifiably overturn some law duly passed by the United States Congress, its opinion must be deeply rooted in one or more of the following:
* A clear reading of the U.S. Constitution;
* Some prior court precedent;
* History and the Common Law;
* Our cultural customs or traditions;
* Some other law enacted by Congress.
The 5 lawyers who invented this newfangled “right” to “gay marriage,” failed, abysmally, on each and every requirement.
The same was true of Dred Scott.
And so both opinions should be summarily ignored.
As President Andrew Jackson famously quipped of a Supreme Court opinion he thought usurped his executive authority, “[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”
After the Dred Scott decision was released, Sen. William Pitt Fessenden, R-Maine, who later served as Abraham Lincoln’s secretary of treasury, said this: “[It is charged] that I am undermining the institutions of the country by attacking the Supreme Court of the United States! I attack not their decision, for they have made none; it is their opinion.”
These people were not being lawless, it was the men in black who were the ones who failed to uphold the law.
Over the last few decades, the other two branches of government, the legislative and the executive, have, for some inexplicable reason, acquiesced to the notion of judicial supremacy – a dangerously dominant concept that erroneously regards the United States Supreme Court as the final arbiter of all things public policy. If this is so, then these nine unelected lawyers are ultimately unaccountable to anyone or anything, and the other two branches of government are but toothless figurehead bodies merely spinning their wheels while spending our dollars.
The people of the United States, if we still value our freedom should fight this notion.
So where are the other candidates on this issue?
I’m scouring looking for comments, but other than Carly’s statement, I can’t find anybody else’s on this particular issue since the SCOTUS denied the stay.
RE: Like it or not, its the way the rules are.
Who said these are the rules?
The rules are — It is the law if IT IS PASSED BY LEGISLATION and SIGNED INTO LAW either by the President or by the state’s governor.
Just because the Supreme Court held an opinion ( just 5 people ) does not make something “a law”.
The courts DO NOT have the authority to make laws.
there speaks a Constitutional idiot. The First Amendment trumps gay rights.
That is what you do not seem to be understanding.
If the state has a law regarding marriage, it has gay marriage. The state must apply the rules equally.
Again, I do not condone it, but it is the law, and the way the law is enforced.
See my other answer. I cannot tell if you are just being argumentative, or if you really do not understand how this works.
D’Souza in one of this books stated that the only entities that should be incapable of discrimination is the government, both fed, state and local.
All other entities should do business as they please.
I agree.
Carson’s two attributes are that he can deliver a good joke (not easy, but he kicked ass in the first debate) and he gives us bragging rights in that we can say: “Nananana, our black is better than your black”.
iCarly’s one attribute is that she’s a WOMAN and therefore is the ONLY REPUBLICAN capable of stopping Hillary. Obviously that’s not a big deal now, given the fact that Trump has no problem standing up to psycho women and that Hillary is toast anyway.
Bottom line - Trump will crush both of them, and won’t even have to put much effort into it. They may be good people (at least Carson, for sure), but they are simply no match for Trump, and neither will come close to doing what Trump is in the process of doing, which is to greatly EXPAND THE PARTY, while still holding the base (thanks to his upcoming choice of Cruz for VP).
that’s funny.. because i’ve been saying the same thing about 0bama and the border.
either he does his job and stops the illegals, or he should quit.
national security is a higher priority then two fags trying to make a mockery of holy matrimony
Which is it Bitch?
Carl is on the stage to attack Donald Trump.
Relaxed. Trump has not let me down yet - one time ever.
So, Carly thinks all peasants should do the governments will?
“But she stopped issuing all marriage licenses, not just gay marriage ones”
Nobody stopped her 3 divorces, apparently. I understand stopping the samesex marriages, but why stop traditional ones?
“Again, I do not condone it, but it is the law, and the way the law is enforced.”
Hmm....just imagine what the world would be like if people had that attitude about the Stamp Act, or the Intolerable Acts....
God's words created us. They have sustaining, enduring and overwhelming bearing on everything.
A vast majority of the U.S. Colonists just that.
The patriots were the lawyers and merchants who suffered most from the oppressive taxation.
It was not exactly a common guy uprising until well into the process.
I am all for changing the laws. But we have to elect a Congress and get a SCTUS that will do something.
I am not optimistic.
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.