Posted on 09/04/2015 5:12:31 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Bottom line, host Joe Scarborough said, is that if Supreme Court makes a decision, that’s the law of land, right?
“You have to go with it,” Mr. Trump said. “The decision’s been made, and that is the law of the land.”
“She can take a pass and let somebody else in the office do it in terms of religious, so you know, it’s a very … tough situation, but we are a nation, as I said yesterday, we’re a nation of laws,” he said. “And I was talking about borders and I was talking about other things, but you know, it applies to this, also, and the Supreme Court has ruled."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Ping to my post 277. I should have included you too in that post.
Going to jail is certainly more than resigning. And it has given internet people something to talk about for a couple days.
Given the left a good argument about how dangerous Christians are since they want to establish a theocracy.
In the end, either this woman or someone else will issue marriage licenses in accordance with the SCOTUS ruling.
This is not the right case to fight this ruling and this is a losing cause.
Ok, Free Republic is not FOR the easily offended,we take it for granted that we’re all big boys here and can take the heat. If we say something stupid we’re gonna get torched. If we say something wise, we’ll still get torched by the stupid. That’s the way it is here. What we do believe is that everyone on FR is a patriot who loves their country. How we express that, and how our opinions may differ should be accepted as the price of brotherhood. I love the fact that I can be blunt and direct here. However, Guenevere, if I offended you please accept my apology. And I checked all my posts, I never addressed anything to you personally until you responded to something I wrote to the whole FR. I am sincere in my apology if I have offended a lady. If you’re not a lady and have the name Guenevere, well... that would explain your confusion.
Well I would hope other county clerks from all over the nation refuse to issue same sex licenses and I would further hope that Christians rallied at court houses all across the county in support of those clerks and then perhaps a large rally in DC demanding Congress over rule the Supreme Count which that have the power to do since only Congress writes laws not the SC. An impeachment or two of a federal judge would also be nice.
I would. Amnesty opens the door for 10 million new Democrat voters, tipping the scale. Amnesty also
My most important issues this election cycle are the economy and national security (ill. immigration affects both).
I support traditional marriage, but would not dump a candidate strong on econ or security b/c of it. As mentioned earlier, it’s a fight to take on once we become economically stable and when no one has the desire or means to blow us up. Once those two matters are resolved, then focus resources elsewhere.
As in business, to get things done, you focus your energy on smaller pieces incrementally, and bring it all together in the end.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. He defended an illegal alien that attacked Trump’s body guard. Typical concern trolling about strong arm robbery. If that’s not liberal, I don’t know what is.
Congress can’t overrule SCOTUS on Consitutional issues unless they pass an amendment.
Do you think that is going to happen and then be passed by the states?
My support for Trump has nothing to do with his smashing the GOPe, although I admire that aspect. It has everything to do with his stance on illegal immigration, which, in my opinion, is the largest destroyer of this country’s sovereignty. I don’t agree with everything Trump says, and in fact, I was an early critic of his twitter wars with individuals. He has cut that down - so good on him. I have also looked over the field candidates and not one of them - other than Trump seems presidential to me. Most of them don’t even seem like VP material. If we don’t get his illegal invasion under control - nothing else matters. It will totally destroy this county as it is slowly doing now. That is my main issue right now. I also think he has the best chance at defeating the Democratic candidate in the general. Some of the polls don’t indicate that right now, but they will if he gets the nomination. The field is split into 17 different choices.
She is refusing to issue licenses to anyone. Hetero or homo. Pure or tarnished.
But it is the homosexuals who had her jailed.
Since she is refusing ALL licenses, she has undoubtedly refused a license to an adulterer. Those adulterers probably just went to another office. The homos had her put in jail.
I do not think the outcome would have been the same - If a straight couple were refused a license, and tried to have Davis thrown in jail, on what basis would they have had to put Davis in jail?
“The guard had just stolen the man’s sign. That was a protest sign that he ripped out of his arms.
In Michael Brown terms, what that was is a STRONG ARMED ROBBERY. That is a felony.”
Blaming Trump’s security for self-defense is a pretty liberal position, and it’s what set me off. Plenty more in that thread. What makes it worse is he pretends he supports Trump. Classic troll behavior. Pretend you’re for someone but you just can’t stand them now. I’m sure you’ve seen it before.
I like my coffee like I like my women.
Do you think Trump’s security guard committed strong-arm robbery yesterday? What about assault? Self defense is a basic tenet around here is it not?
Kind of strange to be throwing those charges around in favor of an illegal alien trespasser on private property. but what do I know, I’m just a newbie.
As I said, I was playing devil’s advocate on this issue. But, her defense wasn’t for refusing to issue licenses for anyone it was based on her religious freedom. As we have seen in other cases, the courts are striking down the religious freedom of all individuals in favor of the homos. I hate it - as most on here do - but, we need to seek God’s face and pray for wisdom in these situations. Legal abortion was instituted in 1973 - and here we are - 2015 - still fighting this battle. I think we are gaining some ground with the individual states passing their own laws on this and with the PP tapes coming out. Sadly, it will probably take a long time to overcome this deviance too.
I don't really know and I don't really care.
Kind of strange to be throwing those charges around in favor of an illegal alien trespasser on private property. but what do I know, I’m just a newbie.
Regardless of what happened, a person's status as an illegal alien doesn't mean they can be attacked without consequence.
He said he watched the video and that the guard appeared to assault the guy with the sign.
Are his eyes liberal?
Per your last line......You just can’t help yourself , can you
I read this last night. You have two people with differing views on what they see on a video.
Give me a link to the video that shows the entire episode, and I’ll give you my opinion as to who did what.
I warn you ahead of time that I saw Dez Bryant make that catch and takes steps before he was downed in last years Packers/Cowboys game. The refs disagreed with me. They were wrong.
Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.105 Marriage license valid for thirty days. A marriage license shall be valid for thirty (30) days, including the date it is issued, and after that time it shall be invalid.
Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.020(1)(c)Marriage is prohibited and void when not solemnized or contracted in the presence of an authorized person or society;
Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.050(1)(b) Marriage shall be solemnized only by ... Justices and judges of the Court of Justice, retired justices and judges of the Court of Justice except those removed for cause or convicted of a felony, county judges/executive, and such justices of the peace and fiscal court commissioners as the Governor or the county judge/executive authorizes
Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.220 Return of license and certificate to clerk after ceremony. The person solemnizing the marriage or the clerk of the religious society before which it was solemnized shall within one (1) month return the license to the county clerk of the county in which it was issued, with a certificate of the marriage over his signature, giving the date and place of celebration and the names of at least two (2) of the persons present.
Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.230 Filing of marriage certificate — Record of marriages. The certificate shall be filed in the county clerk’s office. The county clerk shall keep in a record book a fair register of the parties’ names, the person by whom, or the religious society by which, the marriage was solemnized, the date when the marriage was solemnized, and shall keep an index to the book in which the register is made.
Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.005 Definition of marriage. As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.010 Degree of relationship that will bar marriage. (1) No marriage shall be contracted between persons who are nearer of kin to each other by consanguinity, whether of the whole or half-blood, than second cousins. (2) Marriages prohibited by subsection (1) of this section are incestuous and void.
Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.020 Other prohibited marriages.
(1) Marriage is prohibited and void:
(a) With a person who has been adjudged mentally disabled by a court of competent jurisdiction;
(b) Where there is a husband or wife living, from whom the person marrying has not been divorced;
(c) When not solemnized or contracted in the presence of an authorized person or society;
(d) Between members of the same sex;
(e) Between more than two (2) persons; and
(f) 1. Except as provided in subparagraph 3. of this paragraph, when at the time of the marriage, the person is under sixteen (16) years of age;
2. Except as provided in subparagraph 3. of this paragraph, when at the time of marriage, the person is under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16) years of age, if the marriage is without the consent of:
a. The father or the mother of the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16), if the parents are married, the parents are not legally separated, no legal guardian has been appointed for the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16), and no court order has been issued granting custody of the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16) to a party other than the father or mother;
b. Both the father and the mother, if both be living and the parents are divorced or legally separated, and a court order of joint custody to the parents of the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16) has been issued and is in effect;
c. The surviving parent, if the parents were divorced or legally separated, and a court order of joint custody to the parents of the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16) was issued prior to the death of either the father or mother, which order remains in effect;
d. The custodial parent, as established by a court order which has not been superseded, where the parents are divorced or legally separated and joint custody of the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16) has not been ordered; or
e. Another person having lawful custodial charge of the person under eighteen (18) but over sixteen (16), but
3. In case of pregnancy the male and female, or either of them, specified in subparagraph 1. or 2. of this paragraph, may apply to a District Judge for permission to marry, which application may be granted, in the form of a written court order, in the discretion of the judge. There shall be a fee of five dollars ($5) for hearing each such application.
(2) For purposes of this section "parent," "father," or "mother" means the natural parent, father, or mother of a child under eighteen (18) unless an adoption takes place pursuant to legal process, in which case the adoptive parent, father, or mother shall be considered the parent, father, or mother to the exclusion of the natural parent, father, or mother, as applicable.
etc.
From Obergefell:
“No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
Why should age be any limitation? Why should there be any consanguineous limitations?
Surely this is discriminatory, a violation of equal protection, etc.
In Kentucky a couple under 16, with a pregnant female, may marry with a judge’s permission and $5.00 payment. Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.020(1)(f)(3). In New York marriage where either party is under the age of 14 is prohibited. N.Y. Dom. Rel. § 15-a. If two Kentucky 14 year olds, expecting a child, elope to New York they will not be able to marry. In NY any person issuing a license for such marriage “shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be fined in the sum of one hundred dollars.” Why haven't the Philosopher Kings straightened this out?
Since the Supreme Court has arrogated to themselves the power to legislate, the power to commandeer State legislatures, why haven’t they provided a uniform marriage code for the entire United States? Why are they disrespecting the idea of marriage, “the highest ideals of love and devotion”?
Marlowe is a lawyer. Long time. Successful. And ‘saving clause’ is a synonym for ‘severance clause’. Look it up.
No, I have a sense of humor. To people who don’t know me that can come across as being a jerk. I was sincere in my apology and kidding about your name.
So the illegal alien was attacked? Watch the video for yourself. Someone jumps on your back, you have a right to knock them off. Someone takes your sign, you have no right to attack them. Clear as day.
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.