“so your position is that any elected Christian public servant should resign (==surrender), betraying her constituents, disenfranchising those who elected her as a professing Christian, and violate said consitutents’ unalienalble rights to representation by “consent of the governed” as guareenteed under the DI?
This particular position of this person is not of interpretation of the laws, their job is to follow them. Your argument, like most on this thread, is faulty.
What “unalienable right” are we talking about here? Please explain in detail. It certainly isn’t about representation, because she is not in a governmental position to create law or interpret it. It is to follow and enforce it.
the specific unalienable right the founders discerned under the guidance of God was that all men are born equal. no man (humankind) has any innate superiority to any other. this is a basic doctrine of Christianity.
thus political power over each man’s life and person resides only in that man in the state of Nature as God created it.
thus God mandates that no man or group of men may lawfully exercise any political power over a godly man unless that man or his agent give his “consent” and the conditions underwhich he agrees to relinquish specific powers to another man or a corporate entity such as a gov’t.
suffice it to say, any individual has both the moral duty under pain of hell (the Oaths we take are binding on us and our children) to uphold his side of the bargain. and we also possess the right and duty to withdraw that consent if the other party abrogates the agreement as well.
this “consent of the governed” is the founding law and the most basic right deriving from our Creator’s Law that all of us possess in the united States of America, as agreed upon by the Framers, the representatives of various states, in the Declaration of Independence.
So, what Kentucky law did this woman break?
Or, even more alternately, which Kentucky law was she supposed to uphold, that she didn't?
The punk Uniparty federal judge was trying to browbeat her into violating her oath of office.
I haven't checked today, but if her office is issuing marriage licenses to gays with her name on them, they're committing fraud, and various unlawful conspiracies.