Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: P-Marlowe

“Unless and until KENTUCKY passes a law re-authorizing the issuance of marriage licenses, no clerk in Kentucky should be issuing marriage licenses to anyone.”

So what the hell is the cause then?

They will STILL have to re-write it to allow for gays to get a license. It isn’t like they can write it so they still cant, nor can they stall for years either.

In the end she will still have to give them a license, whether she likes it or not.

There is no “win” for her here.


172 posted on 09/04/2015 6:44:11 AM PDT by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies ]


To: VanDeKoik

She should refuse to obey the court AND she should be punished for doing so.
That’s civil disobedience and it works.

Irony: IIRC this ‘gay marriage’ movement included the civil disobedience of a clerk issuing a license illegally to perverts.


190 posted on 09/04/2015 6:52:23 AM PDT by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat/RINO Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies ]

To: VanDeKoik; P-Marlowe

There’s no “win” for her if she (or her lawyer) takes the route P-Marlowe is describing I agree. This is because exactly as you said the writing is on the wall. Eventually KY will have to re-write the law anyway to comply with the SC ruling. At best, this legal argument only buys her a few months and then she’s really in a bind when the new law comes out authorizing “gay marriage”. It’s winless for her.

We shouldn’t be allowing ourselves to think there’s a “legal” solution to this. The solution is already written into the first amendment. I do not see why it’s such a big deal to allow her to remove her name from certificates of her choosing.

What she should not be required to do, and I believe this is what her lawyer is arguing now, is put her name on the marriage certificates for any “gay marriage”. She should have the option not to do that if she chooses. Those who say “it’s her job” to do so are part of the problem quite frankly. There is a demonstrable, objective difference between signing off on a marriage between a man and woman of different races or creeds and two men or women.

Those who wish to lump this kind of circumstance in with objectively immoral objections such as objections to mixed marriages are part of the problem here. They are literally enabling the destruction of the institution of marriage by refusing to see the clear difference. The persecution of Christians (and Jews) is starting here, with this woman. People need to wake up to this fact before we become a nation of literal Neo-Nazis, just “following the law”.


204 posted on 09/04/2015 6:57:56 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson