Posted on 09/03/2015 10:03:37 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Dan Griffin @WSAZDanGriffin 2m2 minutes ago Judge says financial fines not enough. #WSAZ
Dan Griffin @WSAZDanGriffin 4m4 minutes ago BREAKING: Davis held in contempt taken by U.S. Marshals. #WSAZ
(Excerpt) Read more at twitter.com ...
A term limited Democrat governor who has already taken a public stand against her? Let me know how that works out for you.
It's been pointed out here time and time again, we are not ruled by an emporer, king, dictator, etc.
CGato
You sure have a defeatist attitude.
Abe didn't shoot himself in the back of the head. But I'm done with that discussion on this thread.
At least it's grounded in reality.
That’s exactly the point. Change.org is soliciting signatures nationwide which would be irrelevant in Rowan County. Only registered voters there could authorize a recall election, and then there’s no guarantee a majority of voters would vote to recall.
No problem, just bus in more voters. Angry gay ones. There’s an oxymoron for you. I mean, that’s what the brownshirts would do.
It will certainly create it's own reality. This is what is known as a "self fulfilling prophecy."
I made one comment about historical marriage, not repetative comments.
State sanctioned marriage does not reinforce social norms.
My comments have everything to do with the salient point. Do you know what that is?
I am not libertarian.
Nowhere did I suggest government should be morality free.
You are shooting blind with scattershot going in every conceivable, and some inconceivable, directions in hopes of hitting something.
Chill.
> State sanctioned marriage does not reinforce social norms.
Seriously?
State sanctioned marriage laws reinforce social norms against incest and child marriage.
In case it hasn’t been posted, fine statement on this by Ted Cruz-—
“Is this like saying her hand won’t be on the gas chamber valve? Just issued the tattoo is all. Right?”
If you pay taxes in the US, are you responsible for every act taken by the US government?
Nor is extending US Government benefits to homosexual marriage quite the same, morally, as executing people.
As Justice Thomas Clarence pointed out in his dissent, NOTHING prevented homosexuals from marrying in ANY church that wanted to allow it. However, the US Government and some state governments did not recognize a homosexual marriage as being valid to preferential treatment.
THAT is what the case was about. Not homosexual marriage, which WAS legal, but about extending to it the same preferential treatment by the government given to heterosexual marriage.
A county clerk who issues a license is only saying that the government is going to recognize the marriage as being such. She does not, in any way, recognize it herself. Either way, she will not be condoning homosexuality, nor depriving anyone of life or liberty.
I object to the religious validity, in the eyes of God, of a marriage of two divorced people...with some exceptions as provided by Jesus. But as a matter of law, two divorced people have the right to get a marriage license.
The church I go to will not marry them. But the government can recognize them as married.
In what way is that different?
3 Then the Pharisees arrived with a test-question. “Is it right,” they asked, “for a man to divorce his wife on any grounds whatever?”
4-6 “Haven’t you read,” he answered, “that the one who created them from the beginning ‘made them male and female’ and said: ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two separate people but one. No man therefore must separate what God has joined together.”
7 “Then why,” they retorted, “did Moses command us to give a written divorce-notice and dismiss the woman?”
8-9 “It was because you knew so little of the meaning of love that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives! But that was not the original principle. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife on any grounds except her unfaithfulness and marries some other woman commits adultery.”
Seriously.
Have you noticed the overwhelming numbers of adults living outside the state licensure requirement?
There is a profound difference between social norms and government law. The 2 rarely coincide.
The social norm seems to be to live together without consideration for government controls.
And so what is this then? This argument you have put forth divorcing long standing policy and moral principle from government?
Even if you have a point regarding the state sanctioning of marriage to be a mistake, this is not the time to put it forth. It is just another form of side stepping our opponents instead of defeating them.
Your argument is merely a temporary respite from their assault, because next on the agenda is to force public teachers to teach homosexuality and perhaps encourage it.
Appeasement or running away is the wrong response. Either will just encourage them, and we will have to fight more and bigger battles later as a result.
The people of Kentucky have decided that marriage is between man & woman. The federal government has no say in marriage laws, laws which have always been within the purview of the States.
The USSC claims to have invalidated Kentucky law, the USSC has no authority to commandeer the legislative process of the States and declare that “same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States” nor is there any such “fundamental right”
“The USSC claims to have invalidated Kentucky law, the USSC has no authority to commandeer the legislative process of the States...”
I disagree with their decision, but it DOES carry legal weight. That is part of our common law heritage - court decisions DO create law.
The supremacy of the Constitution gives power to the States and limits the power of the Federal Gov't...
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment. In the modern era, the Court has only done so where the federal government compels the states to enforce federal statutes.
The queer marriage act is a federal statute...Constitutionally it has no power over the States...
In this case Caesar is the State of Kentucky/the people of Kentucky...And Caesar says marriage is between a man and a woman...
Whether people wish to have legal recognition of their association(s) is their business. If they decide to do so they must comply with the law. The people of Kentucky have decided that consanguineous associations, same-sex associations, etc, are not legally recognized as marriage. If persons don’t like the law, they can follow the process defined in Kentucky law to have the law changed.
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.