Posted on 09/01/2015 8:17:31 AM PDT by MeshugeMikey
A Kentucky county clerk, defying a new U.S. Supreme Court decision, rejected requests for marriage licenses from three same-sex couples on Tuesday in a deepening legal standoff now two months old, attorneys for the couples said.
Citing her religious objections, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has refused to issue any marriage licenses since the Supreme Court in June ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry under the U.S. Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
About half way down the page...
Her best judgment is that homosexual marriage is evil, and a violation of her right of free exercise of religion, of which this SCOTUS decision - has effectively ABOLISHED. Her refusal to comply with an evil edict comports with the oath she took for the office she holds.
Davis vs Goliath
Were all three same sex couples getting married together into a sextuplet?
Why not?
Neither does a government license constitute marriage in the Eyes of the Supreme Judge of the Universe.
The State has no lawful authority to interfere and impose upon the Institutions of The Most High.
All the State has are guns it will put to our heads to force submission.
Now is when we'll find out if religious convictions, that were once the norm of the land, will be trampled upon and used as fuel to start jailing Christians.
The USA has now become Nazi Germany, circa 1935-8.
(Just wondering.)
Apparently, she isn’t even issuing licenses to heterosexual couples. I hope that they’re not trying to make her come into the office.
I am in awe of this woman standing up to the tyranny of the 2%.
If Kim Davis has the courage to stand her ground and she ends up in jail then the world sees the mockery that the US Justice System has become. The Power Elite, Hillary and Bill Clinton, Planned Parenthood, and others, can violate laws and merely snub their noses at the rest of us.. They are so adept at working around the laws that, I am sure, the work around is woven into the game plan from the onset.
Excellent, thanks!
Martin Luther King understood the strength of the people and the idea standing against the power of the government and police by Civil Disobedience not violence.
We must stand upon our beliefs no matter how painful the tyranny becomes. That may take real courage once again.
There is a reason that Martin Luther King, Jr.'s letter regarding civil disobedience is known as "Letter from a Birmingham Jail."
That letter included the following:
"I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."
If Kim Davis is serious about making a moral statement, it will be all the more eloquent if she demonstrates a willingness to go to jail for her beliefs. She should welcome the penalty.
Good for them. When they get called on the carpet for it, they need to just point out that they’re following the example of the “sanctuary cities” for illegal aliens, which defy the federal law.
The union of man and woman in marriage predates government.
Sanctuary cities, sanctuary cities, sanctuary cities.
“No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.”
Frederic Bastiat, 1850
She should reply that they can throw her in the same cell as they’re housing the officials who are defying federal law with sanctuary cities.
The oath in Section 228 requires support of the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court’s ruling is based on the Constitution. You can not like the ruling, but those are the facts.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is based on their personal opinion and nothing more.
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.