Someone is doing some real good research for Kim Davis. I hope her lawyers are up to the task of defeating a just about totally corrupt Judiciary making decisions in favor of the bad guys.
The author of this piece has no idea what he is talking about.
A TN Judge made a ruling recently denying a divorce because of the USSC Gaystapo ruling.
In essence it goes like this: Since only the legislative body can make law and courts can only strike law not create it, and the USSC was not specific on striking sections of existing state laws, their ruling in effect struck all marriage laws in all states that had a prohibition on Fictional Marriages.
Arguably, until the legislators of those states create new laws and get them passed, there are no laws authorizing marriage in those states. Thus the Clerk was obeying the law as the Gov cannot make law and his order had no effect.
When she took that oath, it was BEFORE this “against God’s word” “law” went into affect.
So let’s slip down this slope further.
Let’s say a law went into affect that you could “marry” as many people or objects or animals as you wanted. Would she be obligated to do that, too?
The point is, this new “law” has now defined “marriage” as from the courts, not as defied by “God”; in a sense, the black robes have said that God does not exist. One cannot look at the bible and say some stuff happened and some stuff did not; it is either all TRUE or all NOT TRUE.
A clerk the media has a much different opinion of:
http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/county-clerk-who-made-history/
“Meet the Clerk Who Started the Same-Sex Marriage Revolution”
Maybe Obama's bosom buddy Jeremiah Wright was correct: maybe God will damn America. He sure has plenty of cause.
This is a good place and time to take a stand not only for marriage but against and evil corrupt federal government.
Hands down, in the whole, THIS federal government is the biggest threat to the life, liberty and property that Americans have ever faced. The people running the federal government today are the sons of Satan.
They almost always try (in Alinskyite fashion) to hold us to what they believe should be our beliefs, while never having the faintest understanding of those beliefs.
The issue goes to the heart of constitutional law.
Question 1: Did Kentucky pass a law legalizing same-sex marriage?
The answer is ‘No’
Question 2: When Kim Davis swore to uphold the law, which law is she referring to?
I believe it has to be the law of her state first and then of course the constitution.
But the law of her state does not legalize gay marriage. In what sense then is she not upholding Kentucky law?
As for the Constitution, where in that document does it say that just because 5 justices say so, something is now law?
Justices are not there to legislate.
Therefore, Kim Davis DID NOT VIOLATE ANY LAW and should be freed.
“It implies that obedience to divine law is somehow baked in to one’s constitutional duties and obligations.”
It more than “implies” it. It demands it.
"John Dewey described Humanism as our "common faith." Julian Huxley called it "Religion without Revelation." The first Humanist Manifesto spoke openly of Humanism as a religion. Many other Humanists could be cited who have acknowledged that Humanism is a religion. In fact, claiming that Humanism was "the new religion" was trendy for at least 100 years, perhaps beginning in 1875 with the publication of The Religion of Humanity by Octavius Brooks Frothingham (1822-1895), son of the distinguished Unitarian clergyman, Nathaniel Langdon Frothingham (1793-1870), pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Boston, 1815-1850. In the 1950's, Humanists sought and obtained tax-exempt status as religious organizations. Even the Supreme Court of the United States spoke in 1961 of Secular Humanism as a religion. It was a struggle to get atheism accepted as a religion, but it happened. From 1962-1980 this was not a controversial issue.
http://vftonline.org/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm
You and the author both forgot:
Article 6 of the US Constitution: NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.
First amendment states that congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion NOR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.