Legal Scholars Urge Lesser Magistrates to Reject Supreme Court’s Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Opinion

Supreme-CourtWASHINGTON — A group of over 60 legal scholars have signed a statement calling upon American citizens and public officials alike to reject the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion declaring that states must legalize same-sex “marriage.”

“We stand with James Madison and Abraham Lincoln in recognizing that the Constitution is not whatever a majority of Supreme Court justices say it is,” said Robert George, founder of American Principles Project, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and one of the authors of the statement. “We remind all officeholders in the United States that they are pledged to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not the will of five members of the Supreme Court.”

The men and women state that the five justices who issued their opinion ignored the original intent of the Constitution and provided no justifiable reason as to why marriage should be redefined.

“The Court’s majority opinion eschewed reliance on the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, as well as the Court’s own interpretative doctrines and precedents, and supplied no compelling reasoning to show why it is unjustified for the laws of the states to sustain marriage as it has been understood for millennia as the union of husband and wife,” the statement reads.

The scholars said that the four justices who dissented were right in doing so. Among four reasons provided as to why the majority opinion is harmful to society, they noted that “individuals and organizations holding to the historic and natural understanding of marriage as a conjugal union—the covenantal partnership of one man and one woman—will be vilified, legally targeted, and denied constitutional rights in order to pressure them to conform to the new orthodoxy.”

They also argued that “the new jurisprudence of dignity is unlimited in principle and will encourage additional claims to redefine marriage and other long-established institutions” and that “the right of all Americans to engage in democratic deliberation, and ultimately self-government, will be decisively undermined.”

The scholars therefore urged lesser magistrates to reject the Supreme Court ruling as binding upon the nation.

  • Connect with Christian News

“We call on all federal and state officeholders: To refuse to accept Obergefell as binding precedent for all but the specific plaintiffs in that case; to recognize the authority of states to define marriage, and the right of federal and state officeholders to act in accordance with those definitions; to pledge full and mutual legal and political assistance to anyone who refuses to follow Obergefell for constitutionally protected reasons,” they wrote.

“The proper understanding and definition of marriage is self-evidently a vital question affecting the whole people. To treat as ‘settled’ and ‘the law of the land’ the decision of five Supreme Court justices who, by their own admission, can find no warrant for their ruling in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution, would indeed be to resign our government into the hands of that eminent tribunal,” the men and women stated. “That is something that no citizen or statesman who wishes to sustain the great experiment in ordered liberty bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers should be willing to do.”

Signees of the document include Scott FitzGibbon, Professor of Law at Boston College Law School; Ralph Rossum, Salvatori Professor of American Constitutionalism at Claremont McKenna College; Adam MacLeod, Associate Professor of Law at the Thomas Goode Jones School of Law at Faulkner University; J. Daryl Charles, Affiliated Scholar at the John Jay Institute and Daniel Mark, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Villanova University.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Josefina dela Cuadra

    Im reduced into tears by your unswerving faith in God, Kim and your uncompromising stance. I pray i could also have that kind of conviction…God’s grace and peace be multiplied to you as you are facing such an ordeal!! 2Peter 1:2

    • STLBob

      It’s a shame that she doesn’t have the commitment to her county to resign.

  • John_33

    This clerk is an elected official. The courts have ousted an elected official because of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

    • BarkingDawg

      No, she is in jail because she is willfully violating a court order.

      • John_33

        Which goes back to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment…

        • BarkingDawg

          So?

          What part of “Equal Protection under the law” do you have a problem with?

          • John_33

            So my first comment was right and you had no reason to object. As for equal protection under the law, apparently some people are more equal than others.

          • BarkingDawg

            ??? Im not following your logic.

            ow, well.

            Later dude!

          • LadyGreenEyes

            There is no equal protection if her religious rights are violated, and she is jailed as a result!

          • BarkingDawg

            So, if she were a Mulim and was refusing to serve women who are not dressed in a fully enclosed burka, that would be OK with you because it would be her religious right to do so. Is that correct? If not, please explain why.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            This isn’t about how people re dressed. If it was a case of a Muslim refusing to do anything, however, the Muslim would be accommodated, because these days, they can file and win a lawsuit over anything and everything. Are you for arresting the Muslim woman who demanded to wear a headdress at a Disney park?

        • dan

          Which goes back to the fact that shes breaking the freaking LAW. Her religious views have NO place in the workplace. I respect her for her views and convictions, but she is in a public position, and they have NO place there. DO your job, or get the heck out. It is NOT our place to judge, but gods place to judge. It is NOT our right to be his voice and judge, only HE can do that. And those of you that make his decisions for him, will meet his final decision when he judges you for the sins you have committed yourselves.

          • John_33

            Would you say the same if officials refused to enforce slave laws in the 19th century? Why not? Why not catch slaves and return them to their masters and let God sort it out? Or is there a problem with that?

          • http://kkkk.net Hammer Harris

            her religious views are exactly in line. she said it best , she is not a hypocrite, she does not stop being a servant of GOD just because she arrives at work. She is taking a stand where most would bow, and she is excepting the repercussions for that, it is her choice.When was the last time you seen someone stand up for what they believe , in the face of having to be imprisoned to do so? What she has done rather you are a Christian or not is commendable. If more “Christians took a stand for GOD, then this country would be in a whole lot better shape today. Thank You KIM DAVIS!

  • BarkingDawg

    If the court convicts her of criminal contempt, that is a misdemeanor charge.

    The Governor can order her removed from office.

  • John_33

    Christians with religious qualms about gay “marriage” are now treated like second class citizens. You can’t hold public office. You can’t be a baker, a florist, a photographer, or even own a pizzeria, apparently. This is persecution, and it’s a huge violation of the alleged separation of church and state.

    • STLBob

      “Christians with religious qualms about gay “marriage” are now treated like second class citizens.” Aint such a great feeling is it? Welcome to the world you “Christians” have forced gays into for decades.

      • John_33

        It used to be that people denied that they wanted to persecute Christians. Now they openly admit it as your comment reveals. Please know that my stand is only out of love for all including for the LGBT community. I will not compromise my religious beliefs to avoid persecution. If that means jail, then so be it. They did worse to Jesus and the apostles.

        • DNelson

          “Please know that my stand is only out of love for all including for the LGBT community.”

          Please explain how denying citizens rights and harming them in the process is an act of “love”.

          “I will not compromise my religious beliefs to avoid persecution.”

          You don’t have to. No one does.

      • Matilde Tavares

        Christians never stopped LGBT practices, but will. NEVER come into agreement with you to say that behaviour is right, under any citcumstances. It is NOT. The fact that LGBT agenda has persecuted christians, only proves that they know , but want silenced, the Real Truth. To have 5 judges make a decision against a majority of population just shows state of Judges , Judiciary & Justice in USA, Insanity has prevailed. I wonder why they dont challenge islamists, etc? Because the issue is a serious attempt to hamstring the Church & coerce it to be silent. Great democracy!’

        • DNelson

          “The fact that LGBT agenda has persecuted christians”

          Persecute: to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religious or political beliefs, ethnic or racial origin, gender identity,or sexual orientation.

          Please cite how holding people accountable to the law, regardless of their religious beliefs, amounts to Christians being “persecuted”.

          In addition, please explain how pursing laws which restrict the rights of citizens, as was the case with laws banning citizens from entering into marriage based solely upon gender, was NOT persecution.

          • Matilde Tavares

            So , LGBT have more rights than anyone else, ex bakers , Chick fill, now approved, but even firstly considered be rejection? As i said why not target myslims others who disagree with LGBT practices then? How many muslim cases did it occur with them?

          • DNelson

            “So , LGBT have more rights than anyone else”

            Not that I’m aware of. What rights do you think LGBT people have that others do not?

            ” As i said why not target myslims others who disagree with LGBT practices then? How many muslim cases did it occur with them?”

            Are you aware of businesses that are owned by Muslims that turned away gay people and their business was NOT held accountable for violating laws?

    • raytheist

      There is no persecution involved here. She voluntarily refused a direct court order.

      • John_33

        So Quakers who refused to give oaths for religious reasons weren’t persecuted in Europe?

        • raytheist

          This isn’t Europe, she isn’t Quaker, and you’re avoiding the facts of the case at hand with irrelevant diversionary questions.

          • John_33

            If you knew your history, you wouldn’t say such a thing. This is straight up religious persecution.

          • raytheist

            I DO know history. The original colonies all had their own religions, and people from one colony would be regularly persecuted in other colonies. This is why the founding fathers took religion out of consideration when writing up the Constitution. Every individual has the right to their own beliefs, but in the government there is no religion. Government must remain religion-neutral; they cannot endorse or privilege one religion over another, and they cannot endorse or privilege religion over non-religion. We are not a theocracy, but a national of laws that apply equally to everyone.

            Kim Davis is not being punished or persecute for her beliefs. She is in jail because of her BEHAVIOR — attempting to install her religious opinion into public policy over and above the law of the land.

          • John_33

            No, you don’t know your history. Quakers were persecuted in Europe. Because they wouldn’t take oaths, governments would force everyone to take oaths for specific positions and ranks to keep Quakers out. Do you know what the US did in response? They made it so the President doesn’t need to take an oath. They make a provision right in the Constitution just for Quakers (and for everyone else who has a religious qualm with oaths). Why can’t they do that for people like Kim Davis? They can.

          • raytheist

            Because she deserves to be in jail for breaking the law. She took her oath to perform her duties, and now refuses to do her job.

          • John_33

            Would you say the same to government officials who broke the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850?

          • raytheist

            Stick with the topic. Kim Davis is the topic, and her refusal to follow a direct court order.

          • John_33

            No, this is the topic. Why is it any different?

          • Happy Critic

            It’s no use throwing pearls to the pigs. They will just trample them underfoot, and then turn and tear you to pieces.

          • John_33

            I agree. There’s a time to speak and a time to be silent. I believe that this is a time to speak.

          • humbleatheist

            The topic is Kim Davis, and why she is refusing to do her job, at the same time cashing in a paycheck made up of the tax dollars from the very people she is persecuting.

          • John_33

            Can’t answer the question either I see. And as for your claims of “persecution,” Kim Davis is sitting in jail while the accusing parties are not and could have gotten marriage licenses anywhere else. It looks like Kim Davis is the one that is being persecuted.

          • Happy Critic

            Just remember, John: “Blind men cannot see, and ignorant men will not see.”

          • Danfire

            Hahahaha! Do you even know what you said!

  • http://kkkk.net Hammer Harris

    Absolutely OUTSTANDING SISTER!!!, our prayers are with you, and if there is ANYTHING you need just have someone post it to facebook I PROMISE I will do anything too support you! You are making a amazing sacrifice, so we should not hesitate to support you anyway we can as your brothers and sisters in CHRIST!

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Beautifully put! This strong stand will win many to Christ and will backfire on those who overplayed their cards. (BTW, those arguing in front of SCOTUS in favor of gay “marriage” even predicted that this was “going to be a problem.” They just did not care, because they are haters and intolerant of Christianity.)

      • doree10

        “The World knows them and hears them.” we know who is is doing this…Almighty God doesn’t lose wars…It’s souls he will be fighting for…Ever person living under the horrible bondage of this deceitful lifestyle will hear and know about Jesus because of Kim…

        • afchief

          Homosexuality is a bondage!!! In fact, I believe there are demons behind it. It is a sin that will eventually lead people to hell if they continue to practice this lifestyle.

          Also, I have been saying this for awhile…..The “Supreme” Court does not make laws, it simply offers opinions on whether or not a “law” meets Constitutional muster. If the law violates the Constitution, then the law is remanded back to the Legislative branch so that the law can be re-written to fall in line with the Constitution. This is how our government is supposed to create laws.

          Bear in mind that offering an “opinion” does not change the law. They just tell us that it does and we believe their lies. We then repeat their lies and teach them to others. The lies soon become “truth”, although it is not The Truth. I’ll say it again. Courts do not make laws.

          Only the legislative branch (congress) can make or change laws. NOT the SCOTUS.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, you have been saying this for a while. You’ve been wrong for a while. You’re still wrong.

          • afchief

            Any Christian, reasonable and logical mind knows the anus is not a sexual organ. A reprobate, perverted, deviant, blinded, and sinful mind does not.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Completely irrelevant.

          • afchief

            IT SURE IS!!!!

            The statistics on homosexuality and its effects

            Some statistics about the homosexual lifestyle:

            One study reports 70% of homosexuals admitting to having sex only one time with over 50% of their partners (3).

            One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6). The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

            Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting (7).

            Many homosexuals don’t pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: “Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior” (16).

            Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years. “Guerrilla theater tactics and more straight-forward shouting matches characterized their presence” (2). Since homosexuality has been removed from the APA list of mental illnesses, so has pedophilia (except when the adult feels “subjective distress”) (27).

            Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States (5). They make up only 1-2% of the population.

            Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the “gay bowel syndrome” (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus (27).

            73% of psychiatrists say homosexuals are less happy than the average person, and of those psychiatrists, 70% say that the unhappiness is NOT due to social stigmatization (13).

            25-33% of homosexuals and lesbians are alcoholics (11).

            Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film “The Castro”, one minute stands) (3). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to “cruisy areas” and have anonymous sex.

            78% of homosexuals are affected by STDs (20).

            Judge John Martaugh, chief magistrate of the New York City Criminal Court has said, “Homosexuals account for half the murders in large cities” (10).

            Captain William Riddle of the Los Angeles Police says, “30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals” (10).

            50% of suicides can be attributed to homosexuals (10).

            Dr. Daniel Capron, a practicing psychiatrist, says, “Homosexuality by definition is not healthy and wholesome. The homosexual person, at best, will be unhappier and more unfulfilled than the sexually normal person” (10). For other psychiatrists who believe that homosexuality is wrong, please see National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

            It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us(10).

            Gay parade in New York

            Close-up of one of the New York “Gay Parades”

            Homosexuals were responsible for spreading AIDS in the United States, and then raised up violent groups like Act Up and Ground Zero to complain about it. Even today, homosexuals account for well over 50% of the AIDS cases in the United States, which is quite a large number considering that they account for only 1-2% of the population.

            Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne (8).

            37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism (8).

            41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs (8).

            Depending on the city, 39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites like worms, flukes and amoebae, which is common in filthy third world countries (8).

            The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75 (8).

            The median age of death of lesbians is 45 (only 24% live past age 65). The median age of death of a married heterosexual woman is 79 (8).

            Homosexuals are 100 times more likely to be murdered (usually by another homosexual) than the average person, 25 times more likely to commit suicide, and 19 times more likely to die in a traffic accident (8).

            21% of lesbians die of murder, suicide or traffic accident, which is at a rate of 534 times higher than the number of white heterosexual females aged 25-44 who die of these things(8).

            50% of the calls to a hotline to report “queer bashing” involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals) (18).

            About 50% of the women on death row are lesbians (12). Homosexuals prey on children.

            33% of homosexuals ADMIT to minor/adult sex (7).

            There is a notable homosexual group, consisting of thousands of members, known as the North American Man and Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). This is a child molesting homosexual group whose cry is “SEX BEFORE 8 BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.” This group can be seen marching in most major homosexual parades across the United States.

            Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor (19).

            73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age (9).

            Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: “The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality” (22).

            Because homosexuals can’t reproduce naturally, they resort to recruiting children. Homosexuals can be heard chanting “TEN PERCENT IS NOT ENOUGH, RECRUIT, RECRUIT, RECRUIT” in their homosexual parades. A group called the “Lesbian Avengers” prides itself on trying to recruit young girls. They print “WE RECRUIT” on their literature. Some other homosexuals aren’t as overt about this, but rather try to infiltrate society and get into positions where they will have access to the malleable minds of young children (e.g., the clergy, teachers, Boy Scout leaders, etc.) (8). See the DC Lesbian Avengers web page, and DC Lesbian Avengers Press Release, where they threaten to recruit little boys and girls. Also, see AFA Action Alert.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Your copypasta statistics are equally irrelevant. This is not a discussion about whether gay people are happy, have disease, molest children, or any other issue you brought up in there.

            It’s whether Supreme Court rulings are binding. You have thus far failed to prove that they aren’t.

            Oh, and (16) is not a citation unless there’s a footnote 16 below it. But don’t take that as an invitation to give me citations; I’m not discussing any of the topics you just fish galloped up there.

          • afchief

            I have already proved to you they are “opinions”. This is why we have three branches of government i.e. checks and balances. The Legislative branch has to agree with the Judicial branch to make it binding. Until the Legislative branch does. IT IS NOT BINDING!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, you didn’t “prove” that. You just repeated it, over and over, without evidence or citation. The fact is, pursuant to Marbury v. Madison, courts have the authority to overturn laws. No legislative action needed.

          • afchief

            Silly liberal! How many times do I need to tell you that courts to not make or change laws? ONLY THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH!!!!

            You have already proven to me that you are a liar!

          • afchief

            Silly lying homo liberal!!!! You are proving to me more and more you are a paid lying homo plant that frequents Christian and conservative sites to plant lies. I see it all the time! It is quite apparent you are NOT a lawyer because you have NO understanding of how our government works. So let me educate that little lying homo liberal cranium.

            We have three equal branches of government but yet separate. The Legislative Branch is headed by Congress, which includes the House of Representatives and the Senate. The main task of these two bodies is to make the laws. Its powers include passing laws, originating spending bills (House), impeaching officials (Senate), and approving treaties (Senate).

            The Executive Branch is headed by the president. The president carries out federal laws and recommends new ones, directs national defense and foreign policy, and performs ceremonial duties. Powers include directing government, commanding the Armed Forces, dealing with international powers, acting as chief law enforcement officer, and vetoing and signing laws.

            And the Judicial Branch: Headed by the Supreme Court. Its powers include interpreting the Constitution, reviewing laws, and deciding cases involving states’ rights.

            Remember I told you they are ALL equal. This means that when Judicial Branch renders an “opinion” the Legislative and the Executive branch have to be in agreement with the Judicial. In simpler liberal terms…..when the Judicial branch said homo marriage is legal, then the Legislative branch has to agree and change or write the law. Finally, the Executive branch has to agree and sign it into law.

            Is that simple enough for that little liberal cranium????

          • Ambulance Chaser

            As I’ve stated many times, I’m not disagreeing that your statements are simple. I’m not having trouble understanding them; I understand them perfectly. They’re just wrong.

            If I told you 2+2=5, you would (hopefully) tell me I’m wrong. Should I then stomp my foot and ask what it is you don’t understand?

          • afchief

            You are proving to me that liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Let me ask you this: How do the courts work on your world? Suppose Pete sues Dave for breach of contract and demands $10,000. The court rules for Pete. Does Dave have to pay, or does the legislature have to pass a law saying he has to pay?

            Let’s say instead, Pete sues Dave for $10,000 for violating the XYZ Law. Dave moves to dismiss on the grounds that the XYZ law is unconstitutional. The court decides in favor of Dave, that the XYZ law is unconstitutional. Does he have to pay or not?

          • afchief

            Silly liberal!!! How many times do I need to tell you that courts to not make or change laws? ONLY THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH!!!!

            You have already proven to me that you are a liar!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You can “tell” me a hundred times, and it would do nothing. You could show me some evidence, and if you made a compelling case, THAT might change my mind.

            What did I lie about?

            And why haven’t you answered my questions?

          • afchief

            Silly liberal!!! How many times do I need to tell you opinions are not law. Nor do they change the law!!!

            “The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. For example, in the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the justices ruled that racial segregation (separate but equal) in public places is unconstitutional. But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.

            The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.”

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Putting quotation marks around something doesn’t make it a quote. And even if it is a quote, so what?Who said this? Why should I care?

            And quite honestly, it doesn’t even support your point. It doesn’t say anywhere that the Court’s decisions aren’t binding. It just sort of dances around the subject. Whatever “it” is.

          • afchief

            Silly liberal!!! Nothing sinks in to that small cranium, does it? Leave logic and reason to us Christian Conservatives. You have already proven that you are a liar by stating you are a lawyer. I can tell by your writing, you are not. Let me help that little brain of yours one more time.

            This is called Judicial Tyranny and it has radically transformed the direction of this nation. Laws can only be made by one of two ways in America: by an act of the Legislative Branch, or by a citizen’s initiative through a direct vote of the people. Courts can never make laws. They just tell us that they can, and we believe it, and teach it to others until the lie eventually becomes accepted as “truth.”

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So, if the entire country accepts something as being true, how is that different from it being true?

          • afchief

            Because the simple mind is easily manipulated!!! Most of us who have Christ living within us are not. The liberal media and others just tell us that this is the law, and we believe it, and teach it to others until the lie eventually becomes accepted as “truth.”

            You think I’m wrong? Prove to me where Roe v Wade is law? Show me where it is written? And I will show you where it is NOT!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What are you talking about? It’s codified in the official United States Reports at 410 U.S. 113.

            Has anybody been prosecuted for having or performing an abortion since Roe?

          • afchief

            Nope! You are quite wrong! Abortion is not legal anywhere in America. There is no Federal Law on the books regarding abortion. None! There is a “Supreme” Court opinion called Roe v Wade, but that is merely an opinion…not a law! They just tell us that it is and we believe them, follow the lie, and teach it to others.

            In fact, if you were to ask any judge anywhere to show you the abortion law, he or she would have to refer you to state law because that is the only place you will find any law regarding abortion. In 30 U.S. states abortion is illegal. In the other 20 states it is legal only with exceptions for the life or health of the mother.

            Access to abortions of “convenience” is illegal in all 50 states. A “Supreme” Court decision cannot and does not change the law. They just tell us that it does, and we, like gullible subjects, believe them.

            Planned Parenthood has been violating the law in all 50 states and should be closed, and all of the directors and abortionists should go to prison as accessories to murder. That is the law of the land, and that is the Truth.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Which law says abortion is illegal? Penal laws have to be codified. Show me where they’re codified.

            Then tell me why no one is getting prosecuted for having an abortion.

          • afchief

            Silly homo liberal, I have already told you. The simple minded (you) believe what you are told. You repeat a lie long and loud enough the easily manipulate cranium believes it……you!!!!

            Show me where in federal law abortion is legal? YOU CAN’T!!!!

          • Elie Challita

            If there ain’t no law prohibiting an action, then it is by definition legal.
            To argue otherwise is to say that you only have the rights that are expressly defined in the local laws

          • afchief

            Rightly did God say “that the god of this world (satan) had blinded the minds of the unbelieving”.

            You are proof!

          • Elie Challita

            Yes or no: Do you only have such rights as are expressly defined in your local or federal laws?

          • afchief

            What is your point?

          • Elie Challita

            My point: Do you have any rights that are not expressly granted to you by law?
            Is it legal for you to walk on the sidewalk, for example? And can you point me to the law that gives you such a right?

          • afchief

            I know where you are going with this and you are grasping at straws and using poor analogy.

          • Elie Challita

            Indulge me. Do you have any natural rights, or are they all granted to you by the current laws of the land?

          • afchief

            Let me put to you this way. The thing is, marriage has never ever been a right. It is rather a “rite.” Marriage is regulated in all kinds of ways, for all kinds of reasons and it is ordained by God. You cannot marry multiple partners (for now). You cannot marry young teenagers or pre-teens (for now). You cannot marry animals or inanimate objects (for now). Driving is not a right. Neither is hunting, or fishing, or practicing law or medicine. We do require licenses for keeping and bearing arms, but they are not constitutional. What we are witnessing before our eyes is the re-definition of marriage and the trivializing of rights, where anything the left desires to have is now deemed a right, and only they get to decide. And so, healthcare is now a right. Food and clothing are not far behind. Voting with no ID? A right. Unlimited abortion? A right. Going to college? A right. The list is endless. The only rights that are no longer really rights are those specifically enumerated in the Constitution- gun ownership and carry, public display of Christianity, freedom to criticize the State (except when Republicans are in charge).

            Now, even joining the military is a right that never used to be. Once in, the military must cave to the rights of the individual and accommodate them, the exact opposite of military training, which is to break the individual’s will and get him to conform to the identity, will and mission of the group

            The thing to keep in mind about leftists is that rights are not individual. They are collective. It is the individual that must be crushed and forced to conform to the will of the collective. Once you understand that, you understand the leftists view of rights. For instance, a woman suing the SEALS for admission would not be doing it for her own accomplishment, but to “break a barrier for all women.

          • afchief

            Silly homo liberal!!! 1. The Supreme court “CANNOT” make law and over rule amendments of the Constitution such as the 10th. 2. All a supreme court can do is make a decision as whether it is constitutional or not constitutional and again they cannot over rule the amendments.

            The states already had a marriage clause in their Constitutions according to the 10th amendment.

            It is called Judicial Tyranny, silly homo liberal!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            So, you’re evidence for your position is “Because I said so?”

          • afchief

            You are proving to me more and more that you are a liar. You say you are a lawyer but have NO understanding of our Constitution, our government and our laws. NONE! Research it!!! It is plain as day!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I research law every day. Strangely, I can’t find anything that says that court rulings are not binding. And, as you demonstrate every day, neither can you.

          • afchief

            Are you really this dumb? I have been proving to you over and over that they are NOT!

            Go back to liberal la la land!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            When did you “prove” anything? Just saying something over and over again isn’t “proving” it.

          • afchief

            I showed you how are three branches of government work. I showed you how laws are passed at the federal level. Does anything sink in little liberal craniums?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You TOLD me how they work. At least, the way you believe they work. You cited no sources, provided no evidence, and proved nothing. As you continue to do.

          • afchief

            Silly lying homo liberal go back to liberal la la land and let us adults have a civil conversation. It is quite obvious nothing sinks in the little liberal craniums.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Right. They ruled the laws banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional. So what are you disagreeing with me about?

          • afchief

            Silly lying homo non-lawyer liberal. I think you should use that law degree as toilet paper. First marriage was NEVER mentioned in the US Constitution. DO YOU AGREE? Where it is mentioned is in the States Constitution IAW the 10th amendment. The SCOTUS broke the 10th amendment in doing so on this homo opinion. The SCOTUS can NOT rule cases that do not fall under Constitutional laws. One year ago, the same case was presented to the SCOTUS and their ruling then was that this was NOT a Constitutional decision and therefore it to be left up to each of the 50 states. This is what the 10th amendment states.

            This is called Judicial Tyranny!!!

            Again, stop trying to look lawyerly. You are embarrassing yourself!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I’m going to ask you again to probe some of this stuff. Any of it, really. Shouting wrong things louder does not equal proving them.

          • afchief

            Yep, liberals can’t handle the truth!!!!

          • Elie Challita

            Still sticking to missionary, are we?

      • Valri

        Ask yourself if you’d be supporting a Muslim county clerk in the United States who refused to issue a marriage certificate to a woman who wasn’t wearing a hijab. If the answer is “no,” then you’re not fighting for religious freedom. Instead, you’re a hypocrite and a bigot who is fighting for Christian privilege.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Indeed – you betcha I would support the Muslim clerk! My wife looks just as hawt in her hijab now as she did when we were married 35 years ago. (The burka, not so much.)

          A better analogy would be this: Suppose the county clerk had to sign a marriage certificate that read “I spit on Allah and urinate on Mohammed.” I would 100% support the Muslim declining that – and so would you. And that is what you are asking the Christian to do – sign a document that spits on Jesus.

          “bigot”

          Can’t you hateful, intolerant, Christ-phobes come up with something new?!? Go burn down a church tonight like you did last night or vandalize Chik-Fil-A.

          • Valri

            “A better analogy would be this: Suppose the county clerk had to sign a marriage certificate that read “I spit on Allah and urinate on Mohammed.”

            Are you seriously telling me that’s a GOOD analogy? We’re talking about a marriage license. It doesn’t spit or urinate on anyone, it unites two people in love. If your religion teaches you that they are the same thing, no wonder there are so many people out there annoyed at you.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Are you seriously telling me that’s a GOOD analogy? ”

            Yes!

            “It doesn’t spit or urinate on anyone”

            A gay “marriage” certificate spits on the Christian God, it spits on the Jewish God, and it spits on Allah – yes it does! #LogicWins 🙂

            “no wonder there are so many people out there annoyed at you.”

            Oh, they are more than “annoyed,” Christ-phobe: they are foaming at the mouth rabid with death threats and praising the Gaystapo state police. 🙂

          • Valri

            “A gay “marriage” certificate spits on the Christian God, it spits on the Jewish God, and it spits on Allah – yes it does! #LogicWins :-)”

            And where in the law are we bound by what hurts the feelings of the Christian or Jewish God? Logic – really? Once again you seem to make no distinction between what would be a law in your fundamentalist church and what is the law in a county court.

            “Oh, they are more than “annoyed,” Christ-phobe: they are foaming at the mouth rabid with death threats and praising the Gaystapo state police. :-)”

            And there we have it. You are demanding a Christian theocracy where we are ruled by your narrow understanding of the Bible. What a shame the rest of us live in the real world.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “And where in the law are we bound by what hurts the feelings of the Christian or Jewish God?”

            I know that this is difficult for you to understand, as an adolescent absurdist, but religious freedom rights are (or once were) protected in America, even if you atheists don’t like it. (It must be SO difficult for an atheist to give up the religious freedom rights of Christians – haha! :-)) It is called the Constitution, and unlike gay “marriage”, religious freedom is a positive right, actually spelled out in that document that Gaystapo fascists like you trash at your convenience.

            “And there we have it.”

            Yes, and there we have it: you are fine with death threats and Gaystapo tactics. I do so appreciate your intellectual honesty. It’s like the women at the abortion mill: they freely admit that they are going in to kill their babies. Very honest of them – and you too.

          • Valri

            “I know that this is difficult for you to understand, as an adolescent absurdist, but religious freedom rights are (or once were) protected in America, even if you atheists don’t like it.”

            Point one – don’t call me names. Point two – as has been stated over and over, your religious freedoms ARE protected, but not when you use them to beat other people over the head. Get it now?

            “It is called the Constitution, and unlike gay “marriage”, religious freedom is a positive right, actually spelled out in that document that Gaystapo fascists like you trash at your convenience.”

            Is it REALLY so difficult for you to have this conversation without name-calling? Do it again and I will report you.

            But on the subject of the Constitution, if you really want to go that route, the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

            “you are fine with death threats and Gaystapo tactics.”

            You are pulling that out of the air. I never said I was fine with death threats, you made that up. And the Gaystapo doesn’t exist. There ARE, however, people who stand up to religious bigotry and persecution. Of course it makes sense you’d have a name to call them, too.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “your religious freedoms ARE protected”

            Kim Davis sits in jail for asserting hers. Not any more “protected” than MLK, Jr’s was. 🙂

            “but not when you use them to beat other people over the head”

            Did Kim Davis beat somebody over the head?!? Do you have video? Did someone file charges? 🙂

            “fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

            Show me where in those clauses it says anything about gay “marriage.” Also, show me where in the Constitution it says that SCOTUS can legislate, since I keep hearing the phrase that gay “marriage” is not the “law of the land.” 🙂

            “I never said I was fine with death threats, you made that up.”

            Well, here are 300 documented reasons why YOU are on the side of death threats:

            http://barbwire .com/2014/07/07/300-examples-read-understand-meant-term-homofascism/

            “And the Gaystapo doesn’t exist.”

            Google it! 🙂

            “There ARE, however, people who stand up to religious bigotry and persecution.”

            By issuing death threats and cheering those who are put in jail for their religious freedom. And calling it “love” and “tolerance” to boot – haha!!! 🙂

          • Valri

            “Kim Davis sits in jail for asserting hers. Not any more “protected” than MLK, Jr’s was. :-)”

            Comparing MLK to a homophobe is crazy, and Davis has more in common with George Wallace, who blocked the door of
            the University of Alabama against two black students, declaring
            “segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever” in defianceof SCOTUS’s Brown v. Board of Education desegregation decision than she has with MLK.

            “Did Kim Davis beat somebody over the head?!?”

            Metaphorically.

            “Show me where in those clauses it says anything about gay “marriage.””

            While the 14th Amendment was drafted in the 19th century and doesn’t directly address the question of sexual orientation and right to marry, the Supreme Court draws its ruling from the fact that the 14th Amendment allows everyone to enjoy the privileges of American citizenship—including marriage—without legislated discrimination against their orientation.

            “Well, here are 300 documented reasons why YOU are on the side of death threats:”

            Those are nuts, and I disagree with every stupid one of them. Please refrain from linking me any more right-wing nutcase blog posts. You’re wasting your own time.

            “By issuing death threats and cheering those who are put in jail for their religious freedom. And calling it “love” and “tolerance” to boot -haha!!! :-”

            No, most people stand up to religious bigotry and persecution by rightly pointing out that your freedom to practice your religion doesn’t extend to breaking the law.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Comparing MLK to a homophobe is crazy”

            No intellectual argument – just more name-calling from the “rational” one! Only in your sick little world does the fact that a person would be inconvenienced by driving an extra 20 minutes for a piece of paper justify death threats and jail time against someone who disagreed with them. You would have made a fine goose-stepper in 1930’s Germany. 🙂

            “Metaphorically.”

            Hyperbole, actually. You justify jailing someone for inconveniencing others and then have the audacity to use faux hyperbole to attempt a moral equivalence that is nowhere to be found.

            “While the 14th Amendment was drafted in the 19th century and doesn’t directly address the question of sexual orientation and right to marry, the Supreme Court draws its ruling from the fact that the 14th Amendment allows everyone to enjoy the privileges of American citizenship—including marriage—without legislated discrimination against their orientation.”

            In short, it is NOWHERE to be found, haha! Unlike religious freedom which is expressly written into the Constitution. And, of course, the 14th Amendment was written at a time when sodomy was illegal in every state. So, I don’t think we can go with “intent” on that one, hehe. 🙂

            “Those are nuts, and I disagree with every stupid one of them.”

            Good for you – I commend you on your intellectual honesty! And, I am sure you condemn those who sent death threats to Kim Davis too, right? But, you have to admit one thing: there are a LOT of death threat nuts on your side. Almost as many as on the side of the KKK, if you think about it. That is why a lot of folks believe that the gay “rights” movement is more KKK than MLK.

            “your freedom to practice your religion doesn’t extend to breaking the law.”

            She is not breaking the law – there is no law that says SSM is legal, there is no law that compels her to issue gay “marriage” licenses, and in fact there IS a law that says otherwise. Plus, there is a law that protects her asserting her religious freedom rights: it is called the Constitution. 🙂

          • Valri

            “No intellectual argument – just more name-calling from the “rational” one! Only in your sick little world does the fact that a person would be inconvenienced by driving an extra 20 minutes for a piece of paper justify death threats and jail time against someone who disagreed with them. You would have made a fine goose-stepper in 1930’s Germany. :-)”

            I said the COMPARISON was crazy, and it is. It isn’t “name-calling”, that’s YOUR department. I don’t have a sick little world, I have a perfectly normal one where people don’t discriminate against each other on the basis of things like sexual orientation, and I don’t take my personal beliefs and try to pretend they have more authority than the laws of the land do. People should not have to drive an extra 20 minutes to do something that is legal and a county clerk has taken a sworn oath to do. You would have made a fine Adolf Hitler in 1930’s Germany.

            “You justify jailing someone for inconveniencing others and then have the audacity to use faux hyperbole to attempt a moral equivalence that is nowhere to be found.”

            Actually, no, I justify jailing someone who refuses to do her job even after being ordered to do so and after taking an oath that means she provides services to everyone, not just homophobic Christians.

            “In short, it is NOWHERE to be found, haha!”

            Your argument is with SCOTUS then, who believe it IS found there, along with the Due Process clause.

            “And, I am sure you condemn those who sent death threats to Kim Davis too, right?”

            Well, rather than pull things ilke that out of your posterior, would you like to quote where I said them instead? You know, actually accuse me of something I did rather than make your usual wild allegations?

            “She is not breaking the law – there is no law that says SSM is legal, there is no law that compels her to issue gay “marriage” licenses, and in fact there IS a law that says otherwise.”

            Well then you need to read the news, pull your head out of the sand, and maybe take note of the fact that people who perform their duties as assigned tend NOT to go to jail.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Free at last, Free at last, Thank God Almighty Kim Davis is free at last.” God’s true love wins! Gaystapo hate loses! Haha! Go weep and gnash your teeth!

          • Valri

            Fine. She can obey the law this time or go right back to jail.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, that’s not a good analogy. This is a marriage license. It says nothing about any person’s religion, good or bad. If people choose to interpret their own holy books to say that the marriage licenses infringe on their religion in some way, that’s their problem.

            What you’re describing would be a clear, unequivocal violation of the Establishment Clause and probably the Free Exercise clause as well, and such documents should be struck down as unconstitutional.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            It’s an excellent analogy. It’s not a marriage license – it’s a “marriage” license. Kim Davis putting her name on it would indeed be spitting on Jesus.

          • Elie Challita

            By that logic, she’s already spitting on her religion because she’s working for a government that recognizes that type of union.
            Her position makes as much sense as a PETA member working for poachers.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “By that logic, she’s already spitting on her religion because she’s working for a government that recognizes that type of union.”

            That is a valid point, Elie – good to see you back! Of course, the government she joined did not recognize such a union when she joined it AND the government she joined actually respected her religious freedoms when she joined it AND she did everything possible to get an accommodation from the government she joined before SCOTUS invented a Constitutional “right” nowhere written or implied to trump her Constitutional rights that ARE written and explicit. 🙂

            As for the poachers, I did see a zebra herd holding up a sign that said “Thank God Cecil is dead! #ZebraLivesMatter.” 🙂

          • Elie Challita

            The government as it stands now recognizes those unions, and is not bound by her particular beliefs or positions. My company might change its business practices to encourage outsourcing to countries that use slave labor, and I highly doubt they would accept my claims of moral rectitude if I decided to stop building software for them, but still insisted on drawing a paycheck.

            If Kim Davis is such a moral paragon that she can not associate with sin, then she should bloody well leave and campaign from the outside to get a constitutional amendment passed.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “The government as it stands now recognizes those unions”

            Big deal – American government once recognized slavery. So what?

            “If Kim Davis is such a moral paragon that she can not associate with sin, then she should bloody well leave”

            Oh, but there you do not understand what America is (or was). We have (had?) religious freedom over here. It applies to public life too – not just private. It must be easy for an atheist to give up the religious freedoms of Christians (:-)), but I still cannot understand why you would not want to accommodate her? Do you not know that countries with religious freedoms have better human rights records and less poverty? Shall I break out my night time satellite image of the Korean peninsula for you? 🙂

            Do you have problems with footbaths in airports? Where were you with Obama, Holder, and Newsom when they picked and chose the laws they followed? Why won’t you embrace the religious freedoms of all, and why don’t you like less poverty? Which Christian, besides me, pissed you off, Elie? 🙂

          • Elie Challita

            I am accommodating her, and quite a few others like her, as long as she does her freaking job.
            Take conscientious objectors, for example: They were relieved from having to shoot at enemy soldiers, but that did not give them the right to stop their comrade in arms from shooting. Some of them worked in supply chain management and logistics, so you can make the case that they facilitated the killing of enemy soldiers that way. Why is Kim any different?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I am accommodating her, and quite a few others like her, as long as she does her freaking job.”

            This shows what you do not understand about religious freedoms, Elie: when “doing her job” interferes with her religious freedoms, she is NOT forced to give up her job. (Or house or hundreds of thousands of dollars or her freedom, as we keep seeing over and over, despite the fact that the “tolerant” ones keep telling us how they just want to “live and let live.” :-))

          • Elie Challita

            WGC, does religious freedom give you a pass from performing your job at all, or does it allow you to break any law that you do not personally agree with?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I don’t know: ask Obama, Holder and Newsom – they didn’t even appeal to religious freedom when they broke the laws they swore to uphold but didn’t agree with. Last I checked, they have done ZERO prison time. Kim Davis is beating them by 5 days. 🙂

            Sounds like Kim Davis’ bosses – the people in her county who voted her in – are very happy with her performance. You are not in favor of interfering with bosses who support their employees, are you? I thought your side was for “choice?” 🙂

          • Elie Challita

            Georges Wallace’s bosses were also pretty happy with him, if I recall correctly, and her nominal superior, the governor, outright stated he would fire her if it was worth wasting taxpayer dollars on.
            Obama, Holder, and Newsome used prosecutorial discretion the same way as any legal and executive supervisor is allowed to do. I thought your side was for the respect of police authority and how they choose to enforce the law?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Georges Wallace’s bosses were also pretty happy with him”

            1. You just grossly offended millions of black people who know the difference between the Civil Rights movement and the gay “rights” movement, which is more KKK than MLK.

            2. George Wallace was not asking for accommodation in his job for religious freedom purposes. He was Barack Obama before his time, picking and choosing which laws to follow to satisfy his warped ideology.

            “her nominal superior, the governor”

            False, her bosses are the people who pay her salary. She was not appointed as a czar like liberals like to do.

            “Obama, Holder, and Newsome used prosecutorial discretion the same way as any legal and executive supervisor is allowed to do.”

            Newsome issued gay “marriage” certificates against the law. Weird how when it shifts to a liberal cause, you are all for breaking the “rule of law.” 🙂

            “I thought your side was for the respect of police authority and how they choose to enforce the law?”

            Dude. I am a sidewalk counselor in front of an abortion mill in a mostly liberal city in the south. I KNOW how police enforce the laws one way for pro-lifers and another, less restrictive way, for pro-deathers.

      • flackmaster00

        you put the word marriage in quotes, implying that gays who marry arent actually doing so. what is your opinion on non-christians in historically non-christian societies (far east asia for example) having paired people together since the beginning of recorded history, since before the bible or events of the bible? that is in no way a christian ritual, are they not married either? does that corruption also taint christian marriage?

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Can’t help you much there, Sir. All I could do, if I wanted to, would be to provide you with the many gays who say that their intention is NOT equal “rights” to “marriage,” but to destroy the institution itself.

          One thing is clear: the reasoning that SCOTUS used is as vacuous as the reasoning that they used in creating a “right” for a woman to kill her child in the womb. Most legal scholars on both sides admit that the 14th Amendment in both cases was nothing more than a means to an end, which results were inventions out of thin air that had nothing to do with a clear reading of the Constitution.

          And the reasons for changing the definition of marriage from two consenting opposite sex adults to two consenting same sex adults are fully consistent with relaxing “two,” “consenting,” “adults” too. So, it really is quite insane. Thus, the concept of gay “marriage” fails even on secularism, much less Christianity. On Darwinism, it is a disaster. My atheist friends sometimes forget that.

          • flackmaster00

            but that goes to the crux of the issue of christians believing that marriage belongs to them and their god. other cultures practice this without any christian influence, i’m asking you if you consider their marriages to be to be illegitimate due to their exclusion of the christian god?

            invoking darwinism is useless, of course aberrations from the norm that do not contribute to the gene pool exist. whats your point in bringing it up?

            and you are falling into a logical fallacy by implying that gay marriage is opening the door for “two” to become more, “consenting” to become forced, and “adults” to include children, and is further debunked in the fact that the mormons have yet to take over america with their preferred marriage rules. how long have they been around operating on that same slippery slope you are so afraid of? gay marriage is between two consenting adults, and neither of them are you, thus your marriage remains entirely unaffected. dont delude yourself, the reason you dislike it is because an even number of penises or vaginas in someone else’s relationship it is contrary to your particular religious group’s views on morality.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “but that goes to the crux of the issue of christians believing that marriage belongs to them and their god.”

            Not at all – I was an atheist when I got married. Gay “marriage” is destructive on secular counts: bad for the individuals (the homosexual lifestyle is shown to be destructive by secular sources such as the CDC, etc), bad for children (who are adopted by gay “parents” as proven from secular sources), and bad for society (as religious freedoms are eroded).

            “invoking darwinism is useless, of course aberrations from the norm that do not contribute to the gene pool exist.”

            Thank you for admitting that homosexual behavior is a defective aberration, even on atheism!

            “and you are falling into a logical fallacy by implying that gay marriage is opening the door for “two” to become more, “consenting” to become forced, and “adults” to include children”

            Not at all. So, you cannot tell me why the SCOTUS “argument” in favor of gay “marriage” would preclude “more than two,” “non-consenting,” child-adult marriages, do I have that correct?

          • flackmaster00

            “Thank you for admitting that homosexual behavior is a defective aberration, even on atheism!”

            and so is red hair and downs syndrome. if this is your argument, then it is severely lacking.

            “So, you cannot tell me why the SCOTUS “argument” in favor of gay “marriage” would preclude “more than two,” “non-consenting,” child-adult marriages, do I have that correct?”

            well, their rulings dont mention allowing any of those things. so no, you are incorrect. check out google, it shows at least one supreme court case ruling AGAINST polygamy.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “and so is red hair and downs syndrome. ”

            I am glad you brought up Down’s Syndrome. You do realize that Richard Dawkins thinks it is immoral to NOT abort a child diagnosed with Down Syndrome? (Presumably in the womb only, but you never know.) I believe that Dawkins, in this judgment, is being 100% consistent with his evolutionary naturalism.

            “well, their rulings dont mention allowing any of those things”

            Actually, the dissents do. But, my question is this: why does the “logic” of the majority opinion in that ruling rule out the slippery slope? I’m not seeing that.

          • Elie Challita

            To answer your last questions:
            1- Monogamy and polygamy are social constructs. Personally I think polygamy would be a legal nightmare to implement given our current system, but it was a prevalent system in many cultures. I don’t support it, but I don’t see it as destructive in and of itself.

            2- What would ever make you think that anyone would relent on consent in general, and age of consent in particular? If anything we’ve been moving steadily away from forced and underage marriages. The latter two are pretty much hallmarks of conservative societies, from Medieval Christian Europe to Hindu India to the Muslim Middle East.
            You’d be hard pressed to find any progressive, secularist, humanist, or atheist advocating for forcing anyone against their will or better judgment.

            *Sigh*, I know you’re going to bring up NAMBLA or some such, but at least have the decency to admit that nobody who doesn’t belong to that particular cesspool wants anything to do with them.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Dang! You cut my NAMBLA response off at the pass, oh clever one! 🙂

            All I am saying is that the “logic” used in Obergfell is fully consistent with relaxing the 3 restrictions posited. That position seems to hold up. That, and the fact that more and more legal scholars are coming out admitting same – just as in Roe and Doe – should be a tipoff that this decision is vacuous. It, like the “right” to an abortion, was nothing more than a means to an end.

            Besides, what is wrong, on atheism, with NAMBLA?!? 🙂

          • Elie Challita

            Nope. The logic in Obergefell stated that there was no reason to deny consenting adults the rights granted to other consenting adults.
            I can see why you could extend that to polygamy, but honestly I couldn’t care less about that. Nothing in Obergefell indicates relaxing the criteria for consent, and I quite honestly don’t understand how you made that stretch.
            Can you point me to the supporting passages in the decision?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You are missing the point I am trying to make, Elie: the arguments used in favor of relaxing “opposite sex” to “same sex” are fully consistent with relaxing from “two” to “three or more” (or even “one”) and “non-consenting.” So, even though no discussion was made of that, the point is that there is nothing in the “logic” which prevents it, and in fact, the arguments relaxing to “same sex” could also be used for polygamy or non-consenting “marriages.”

            In a nutshell, the rogue SCOTUS judges would be relying on tradition or natural law or “we all know that ‘non-consenting’ marriages aren’t REALLY ‘marriages’ ” to argue against these newer aberrations, and yet, that is precisely what traditionalists were saying about NOT relaxing into “same sex.”

            It’s absurd self-refuting thinking on their part, and they haven’t a clue about it. And as time passes, we will see more and more legal scholars on the side of gay “marriage” admit that it was all a wink and a nod and nothing more than a means to an end. Precisely like they have done with Roe and Doe. Don’t feel bad that you were fooled into thinking that this was the equivalent of racial civil rights: a lot of people were.

          • Elie Challita

            You still haven’t pointed out which part of the decision and majority opinion will allow someone to force another person into marriage.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            The burden is on you, Elie, to show me how the “logic” used in relaxing the definition prevents non-consensual or adult-child “marriages” for “non-discriminating” or “equality” purposes.

          • Elie Challita

            Nope. You still have to prove how that logic would basically legalize rape. You’ve made that claim multiple times, but I’m still waiting for the specific terms that would allow you to legally rape an unwilling party or a child.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Nothing the SCOTUS does is legislation, Elie. The “logic” they used to relax certain terms of the definition of “marriage” is the same that one could use to relax other terms of same. You need to show why this is not so – why is gay “marriage” not merely invented out of thin air, unlike religious freedom?

            What is wrong, on atheism, with rape? Happens all the time in the animal kingdom. It seems to me that this point of contention we are discussing is objectively important to you? That seems to indicate that you believe that it actually matters in some objective sense. But, how is this so, on atheism, where the universe will just die a slow cold dark death and no One will be around to know that you fought so hard for civil “rights” or that such a concept even ever existed? All history will be wiped clean on atheism, cleaner than Hillary’s server. 🙂

          • Elie Challita

            That makes about as much sense as relaxing the standard on murder would. I can see that you’re busily oiling that slippery slope to make your argument, WGC, but that’s a weak position at best: You can argue that legalizing anything is simply one more step towards forced marriages.

            I like how you keep saying “on atheism” as if it were some sort of drug. We’re not on Prozac, you know…
            You should know my position by now: I don’t care whether an action has any meaning by the time the heat death of the universe rolls along, but I will condemn it if it is forced upon an individual and causes them harm. I know I would not wish to be treated that way, and therefore I would condemn treating anyone else the same way.
            It’s not a perfect rule, but it doesn’t have to be.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Hey Elie, great hearing from you again – love your humor too!

            “You can argue that legalizing anything is simply one more step towards forced marriages.”

            Not at all. Just basing my argument on the “reasoning” used in Obergfell. Take it up with them. Anything goes on their logic, not mine.

            “I like how you keep saying “on atheism” as if it were some sort of drug.”

            That might be a language thing between us – I was not actually using it that way, sorry, please forgive. “On atheism” is short for “on the atheistic worldview,” meaning “if atheism is true.” It’s shorthand in philosophy, not a reference to the 60’s. 🙂 (I was there, BTW.)

            “We’re not on Prozac, you know…”

            But, you SHOULD be (:-)):

            “Is there a God? No.
            What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is.
            What is the purpose of the universe? There is none.
            What is the meaning of life? Ditto.
            Why am I here? Just dumb luck.
            Is there a soul? Are you kidding?
            Is there free will? Not a chance!
            What is the difference between right/wrong,
            good/bad? There is no moral difference between them… So
            much for the meaning of history, and everything else we care about… you will have to be comfortable with a certain amount of nihilism . . . . And just in case there’s always Prozac.” — Alex P. Rosenberg

            “I don’t care whether an action has any meaning by the time the heat death of the universe rolls along, but I will condemn it if it is forced upon an individual and causes them harm.”

            Thank you for joining me in the pro-life movement – it’s great to have you on our side! I will see you on the sidewalk this weekend, OK? 🙂 Can’t think of any Holocaust that has caused more harm than abortion – 58 million and counting in the US alone.

            Fortunately, in the case of Kim Davis, we can easily accommodate her and cause no harm to gay people all at the same time. Weird, huh? (If that were really the goal here, and not stifling Christian religious freedom.)

            “I know I would not wish to be treated that way, and therefore I would condemn treating anyone else the same way.It’s not a perfect rule, but it doesn’t have to be.”

            It’s a pretty doggone good rule, especially as it is also Jesus’ Second Commandment. OMG – we agree on something! 🙂

            Of course, it makes no sense “on atheism.” 🙂

          • Elie Challita

            Why would it not make sense on atheism? In the absence of objective morality, the only basis remaining is subjective morality and its sociological recognition.
            Societies cannot exist without an agreed upon set of rules, and the most basic of those rules is that you have to respect others’ physical integrity and choices somehow.
            Of course that application can be flawed, such as when that respect is only extended to the privileged castes, but that’s a failure of application rather than principle.
            Whether any action matters in a few trillion years is immaterial: that action’s immediate effects will determine how it is seen subjectively, and action that violates the social contract should and usually will be stopped eventually.

            That social contract can be in dire need of updating, and I sometimes think that the best we can do is stumble hesitantly from one improvement to another, but at the end of the day I think that crimes or mistreatment are the result of either a misunderstanding or an outright rejection of subjective morality.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Why would it not make sense on atheism? In the absence of objective morality, the only basis remaining is subjective morality and its sociological recognition.”

            Yes, precisely! Subjective morality just means that we can choose what we call “good” and “bad.” Do you not know that Hitler and the Nazis thought that they were doing good for the sake of their society AND mankind?!? I mean, these guys were really committed to their sociological idea of “good.” They were 6 million dead Jews committed, but they just KNEW it was good. 🙁

            “Societies cannot exist without an agreed upon set of rules, and the most basic of those rules is that you have to respect others’ physical integrity and choices somehow.”

            Great! Then, not only do I understand you to respect Hitler’s choices, but also Kim Davis’. Thank you!

            And, since you want to respect physical integrity, then I am glad to welcome you once again over to the pro-life, since abortion doesn’t even come close to respecting the bodily integrity of the human in the womb, given the shredding and bodily dismemberment of the fetus. (Want pictures?)

            You have made OUTSTANDING arguments in favor of abolishing abortion in your last two posts. I wonder why 97% of your fellow atheists cannot see that – deficient moral compasses perhaps, or just plain old ice cream flavored subjective morality?!?

            “Whether any action matters in a few trillion years is immaterial: that action’s immediate effects will determine how it is seen subjectively”

            Yes, yes, an ice cream flavor – and nothing more!

            “and action that violates the social contract should and usually will be stopped eventually.”

            What?!? Do you not see it?!? You used the word “should” there in an objective manner. That is completely inconsistent with subjective morality. Are you bouncing back into the world of the theist now? We are glad to have you, Elie! A pro-life theist, you now are – welcome aboard! 🙂

            “I think that crimes or mistreatment are the result of either a misunderstanding or an outright rejection of subjective morality.”

            Dude, if morality is subjective, there is no such thing as mistreatment. One man’s heinous Jew gassing is another man’s racial purification. One woman’s “saving her child” from a future of suffering is another woman’s barbaric baby sacrifice.

            Great talking with you, Elie!

          • Elie Challita

            You’re not listening, WGC. Subjective morality doesn’t mean that you can do whatever the hell you want, and that nobody has the right to object. It means that an action has to be evaluated rationally depending on situation, intent, and consequences.

            Can you conceive of any situation where the murder of 6 million people, with the best of intents, could lead to a better outcome for everyone involved? Can you also claim that no other solution would be any less harmful? Not only was Hitler’s final solution horrific, it was also completely irrational because there is no demonstrable basis for Jewish people being the root of all evil.

            Take abortion as well: I don’t support abortion on a personal basis. In my opinion, women abort either for medical reasons, or because they got pregnant when they didn’t want to. I won’t condemn the first scenario because I refuse to tell someone that they have to die to satisfy my own morals, or that they have to carry a non-viable fetus until the inevitable miscarriage. And I think that robust sex ed and affordable and common contraception would eliminate the latter case. I am constantly baffled by religious conservatives blocking contraception, sed ed, and scientific research when those very same subjects are what will eventually eliminate the need for abortion.

            In any case, could you please tell me how your objective morality comes into play? Which yardstick do you use to assert that something is objectively wrong?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “You’re not listening, WGC.”

            Oh, I’m listening all too well, Elie. I thought this through deeply before I became a Christian, and scholarly atheists even agree with me here. Perhaps you have not thought this through as seriously?

            “It means that an action has to be evaluated rationally depending on situation, intent, and consequences.”

            Exactly! And two people will reasonably come to opposite conclusions based on this – don’t you see it?!? In fact, someone who is in favor of abortion “rights” can always use “situation, intent, and consequences” to squeeze their way out of basic science and empathy to continue to support it – precisely what slaveowners did too.

            “Can you conceive of any situation where the murder of 6 million people, with the best of intents, could lead to a better outcome for everyone involved?”

            OH, but it is NEVER about a “better outcome for everyone involved.” If such were the case, abortion would be illegal right now. Hitler could see of a situation where the “most collective good” would come out of his policies – and all of the Nazis and modern-day anti-Semites, including the state of Iran see this too. Purifying the Aryan race would lead to a better human species evolution – it’s really quite simple, that was the Nazi view – and it is fully consistent with evolutionary naturalism. I have heard similar reasons given in favor of abortion.

            “Not only was Hitler’s final solution horrific, it was also completely irrational because there is no demonstrable basis for Jewish people being the root of all evil.”

            Oh, but that was NOT his basis: it was that Jewish people were sub-human, inferior (like the human in the womb today, according to pro-aborts). And there were all kinds of eugenic studies going on in Germany and throughout the world, including in the US, that “verified” this. (Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a big fan of eugenics, BTW.)

            “I won’t condemn the first scenario because I refuse to tell someone that they have to die to satisfy my own morals”

            But, would you make abortion illegal, except to save the life (not health) of the mother, which is a fraction of 1% of the cases, and which many OB-Gyns say never happens, since all one does when the woman’s life is in jeopardy is to induce labor or perform a C-section, etc, neither of which is an abortion? So, are you with me on outlawing the 99.9% of abortions that are not the “life of the mother” exceptions?!? (Because usually when someone brings that exception up, it is an excuse for allowing the other 99.9%.)

            “And I think that robust sex ed and affordable and common contraception would eliminate the latter case.”

            As contraception availability has increased, so have abortions. The vast majority of abortions occur because of failed contraception. I can provide data to prove this if necessary, but simple logic should explain it.

            “I am constantly baffled by religious conservatives blocking contraception, sed ed, and scientific research when those very same subjects are what will eventually eliminate the need for abortion.”

            False, and demonstrably so. We have had readily available contraception for decades. Yet abortions have climbed from about 30K per year to over 1.6 million per year, before leveling off at about 1.2 million per year. That level of abortions is eerily close to the kill rate of Jews in Nazi Germany, and is not even CLOSE to “eliminate the need for abortion.” (Unless you think over a million abortions a year is “close” to zero.)

            How about we make the homicide of the human being in the womb illegal? Buy your own contraception, or keep it in your pants. Great quote from a great pro-life activist:

            “I’d kill for an orgasm. In fact I already have! #ShoutYourAbortion” — Basset_Hound

            “In any case, could you please tell me how your objective morality comes into play? Which yardstick do you use to assert that something is objectively wrong?”

            Jesus.

          • Hoosiers4ChristianConservative

            Very nice post. My parents have always joked that they both used the same form of contraception when younger…..they called it ‘marriage’. 😉

            One point though: in several States, murdering a pregnant woman is automatically counted as a double homicide (or triple, etc., if twins or more) REGARDLESS as to whether the woman intends to keep the unborn babies: in some States, it must be shown the woman wanted the baby/babies and in the rest it is never relevant.

            These Fetal Homicide laws are a joke. If someone murders a pregnant woman, they will also be charged with 1 count of homicide for each unborn CHILD yet the pregnant woman can ABORT, thus KILLING, this same unborn child without penalty. The hypocrisy is astounding.

            And in the States which make it conditional based on the mothers choice, an unborn child is thus viewed as simultaneously being an unborn human being with inalienable and Constitutional Rights AND simply a clump of discardable cells.

            Anyone who agrees with this logic is a complete idiot.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Thanks! And love your parents’s quote!

            I agree 100% – the cognitive dissonance on those laws is unreal. Makes me think I am living in an SNL skit sometimes.

          • Hoosiers4ChristianConservative

            I agree….I forgot one thing:

            If a woman lives in a State whose Fetal Homicide laws dictate that the second a pregnant woman verbally declares that she WANTS her ‘unborn fetus’ it legally becomes an unborn human being AND American with inalienable and Constitutional rights, hence the State being able to prosecute additional homicide charges where a pregnant woman is the victim.

            So, my question……according to the U.S. Constitution, once a person is granted their Constitutional rights, they can NOT be revoked, period. How then can a woman subsequently decide she does NOT want the unborn baby, who is at that point a recognized person with Constitutional rights, and choose to kill/murder it?

            It is a paradox…..

            Either ALL Fetal Homicide laws must be revoked or ALL unborn fetuses must be recognized as unborn human beings with Constitutional rights. There can be NO muddle ground.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Wow – excellent! You really connected the dots all the way back to that document, the Constitution, which is never considered anymore these days. I had not thought about it from that angle. Thanks!

          • Hoosiers4ChristianConservative

            My pleasure. When dealing with individuals who are capable of critical thought, I always learn something new…..I would definitely characterize you as a critical thinker. 😉

            This is why I have my son enrolled in a Christian school that uses the classic Trivium approach to education….NO Common Core, NO ISTEP, NO Liberal Indoctrination, NO Grades, NO Tests……just 3 phases…….Wrote Memory…..Logic…..Rhetoric. During their Senior year, they write a research paper and present it before a board, who grills them for 3 hours in addition to bringing up questions pertaining to their K-11 education.

            I’m always attacked by the Progressive and Atheist crowd…..’Your kid will never get into college’……and ‘you’re indoctrinating your kid’…..LOL….yes, I am indoctrinating my child into MY ideology and not theirs thank ya very much …..and graduates who take the SAT exam are scoring in the top 1% and are being accepted to their college of choice, including Ivy League, although most are choosing Christian Universities. 😉😅😀

            The same manner in which humans have educated their children for thousands of years.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That’s exactly the way it was always done – good job bringing up your kids properly! We heard the same complaints when we homeschooled our kids: our youngest is now an engineer with a major aerospace and defense company, and his superiors are all asking him how to homeschool – they are that impressed with him. He had half of his college done by the time he graduated from our “high school.” Our middle child has a Master’s from seminary, and our eldest is also an engineer.

            So, I guess “somehow” they succeeded that “awful” indoctrination and “brainwashing” we did on them. 🙂 Good luck going forward – the foundation you are laying for them is fantastic!

          • Hoosiers4ChristianConservative

            Thanks….and great job on making such a difficult yet important choice to homeschool your children. Unfortunately, I am a single father raising a son absent any involvement of the ‘mother’, so homeschooling was not a viable option. I was very much surprised at how difficult it was to find a Christian school that actually taught from a classical AND Christian perspective. Most of the ‘Christian Schools’ here in Central Indiana actually adhere to Common Core and ISTEP, which is a Progressive based grading system.

            Sounds like you both raised some critical thinkers….😉
            I laugh everytime someone admonishes me for ‘indoctrinating’ my son…..LOL…I always reply: “As opposed to letting my precious child be indoctrinated by someone else in an ideology I reject……?” 😉

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “great job on making such a difficult yet important choice to homeschool your children”

            I think that was the Holy Spirit leading me in that direction. I was not a Christian when we began homeschooling, but I rather quickly became one, also partly due to the incredible grace-filled witness of the lives of homeschooling families. They make up a culture that I did not know existed, and they made it much easier for me to accept Christ, since I wanted what they had! It WAS the toughest thing we ever did, homeschooling, and I was the one in charge of the daily progress, since I was running a business out of our home.

            I am blessed to now homeschool (math and science only) a girl in our neighborhood whose dad has PTSD (he is divorced too). It has been a blessing, and she is going down the technical route too, it would appear. She is a freshman and I have her taking Algebra II / Trig and Physics. In my homeschool, we do NOT follow the same schedule as the public schools – I tailer to the student’s strengths and readiness only.

            I will pray for you and your son! God bless you for raising him up right, despite the difficult situation of having no help from his mom. Stay faithful to the Lord, even through the many storms that your situation will encounter.

            Common Core, barf, barf. Might be worse than just letting the kids hang out on the streets, hehe. 🙂

            Oh, yes, you can be sure we prayed every day, and I prayed multiple times a day – so many highs and lows in homeschooling. When my son was 13, he was doing a dual enrollment English course at a community college and he rocked the class with an anti-abortion paper! I was so proud!

            Keep up the great work – God bless you!

            PS. I did my undergraduate work in engineering in Champaign, Illinois, pretty close to the Indiana border and mid-state north to south.

          • Hoosiers4ChristianConservative

            Thank you and Blessings. What a wonderful account of your families struggles and triumphs. Like you, I am always amazed at the generosity and fellowship of true Christians……like anyone else, we are fallible and flawed, yet understand forgiveness and grace. I had my son ‘out of wedlock’ and am constantly asked if I would do things differently given the choice. My answer is a resounding ‘NO’. I sinned….end of story….yet God blessed me with a beautiful son while simultandously letting me suffer the consequences of MY sin in dealing with a crazy woman and her drama for years. I accept both and thank God for both. Some individuals do not understand my response yet my fellow Christians DO……
            My brother attended SIU in Carbondale back in the early 90’s……what a wild time. Lol
            Great job on sharing your faith and desire to help educate others….

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Dude, I was an atheist for 42 years – I am the “chief of sinners.” If that is the worst you have, count yourself BLESSED! (Galatians 1:23 is my fave verse, let’s leave it at that. :-))

            SIU-C! My best friend went there. Total party school in the 70’s and 80’s. It was my second choice, but not for that reason.

            Thanks for the encouragement on sharing my faith! You do a nice job too!

          • Elie Challita

            No, just no. Whatever else the Nazis may have thought they were doing, by all rational and scientific understandings they were utterly wrong. There is absolutely no basis to the concept of racial superiority. Even if there is any basis by which to declare an entire category of people harmful, the mere existence of alternate solutions short of mass murder would by default make murder the least humane and moral choice.

            I wouldn’t make abortion illegal, for the same reason that I don’t argue for reinstating Prohibition: Driving a function underground will not stop it from existing, it will simply make it the purview of a criminal element or make it grossly unsafe. The number of reported abortions may have risen, but I think you’re neglecting the following factors:
            1- The total rate of abortion per capita may not have increased by the same extent.
            2- The increase can be attributed to the fact that abortions are now legitimate medical procedures, as opposed to being performed in secrecy and thus underreported.

            I think you’re making a correlation-causation mistake with contraception and abortion. With the exception of medically mandated abortions, women choose to abort because they cannot or do not wish to carry, birth, or support a child. If abortion was legal but contraception was limited or unavailable, I’m sure you would have a much higher rate of abortion than you currently do.

            Besides, you claimed to be a sidewalk protester in front of abortion centers. Can you honestly tell me that the women you’ve seen walking into these places seem to have made their decision lightly or flippantly?

            Finally: Why Jesus? What part of his teachings? What makes you so sure that, out of all the possible religions, this one is correct?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Hey Elie – great hearing from you – I am enjoying the conversation.

            “No, just no.”

            Yes, just yes, Elie. 🙂

            “they were utterly wrong”

            I agree 100%! But, I am surprised to hear you say this. I thought that you did not believe in objective morality, but relative morality? You may be on the verge of becoming a theist.

            “I wouldn’t make abortion illegal, for the same reason that I don’t argue for reinstating Prohibition”

            Poor comparison: we have already established that abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being with intrinsic moral value. (I repeat that argument below.) Saying you would not make abortion illegal is the equivalent of saying that you would not make homicide illegal.

            “Driving a function underground will not stop it from existing”

            The same is true for rape and murder and burglary. Are you for repealing those laws too?

            “grossly unsafe”

            Abortion is ALWAYS grossly unsafe for the child in the womb, last I checked.

            Do you see what you did here, Elie? You started back into your definition of subjective morality to justify a heinous and barbaric act.

            “women choose to abort because they cannot or do not wish to carry, birth, or support a child.”

            Because their contraception failed. That’s a fact. Besides, doesn’t that mean that it would be reasonable for women to kill their kids outside of the womb if they do not wish to support a child?!?

            “Besides, you claimed to be a sidewalk protester in front of abortion centers.”

            Sidewalk counselor. But, yes, it does get ugly when the clinic escorts are screaming at us.

            “Can you honestly tell me that the women you’ve seen walking into these places seem to have made their decision lightly or flippantly?”

            Oh yes! Please, go stand in front of an abortion clinic sometime – you will be amazed by what you see, Elie. Most go in with smiles on their faces, some do not and are surely troubled, but some go in and make obscene gestures (spreading their legs and making a plunging motion to show the method of abortion) while cussing us out and laughing. You would be shocked. The moral depravity is astounding. But, not on atheism, of course. 🙂

            But, yes, there are some who go in with a serious look. Of course, it SHOULD be a serious thing to knock off one’s baby, no? I wonder how serious Susan Smith looked when she drove her kids into that lake to drown?

            “Why Jesus?”

            Because He is God and He rose from the dead. (See, e.g., Minimal Facts Argument for the Resurrection.)

            “What part of his teachings?”

            ALL of them – every single one of them, especially His Greatest and Second Commandments, but all of the others too.

            You know, it’s interesting to me that the only attacks I see on Jesus from atheists is that they claim He did not exist. (Which is very convenient for them, if you know what I mean. :-)) I rarely hear them attack Jesus on other counts. Weird, huh, since Christianity has Jesus as its core? As in Jesus CHRIST.

            “What makes you so sure that, out of all the possible religions, this one is correct?”

            Explanatory power and scope of Christian theism in light of the general revelation of science, math, philosophy, logic, etc AND in terms of human psychology and behavior. (And other areas too, like archaeology and linguistics, etc.)

            Great questions and good talking with you, my friend!

    • humbleatheist

      In other words, as long as it’s a Christian refusing to do their jobs while receiving a paycheck made up of the tax dollars from the very people she is denying, it’s ok. I am willing to bet if it was an atheist denying Christians, or a Muslim denying Christians, you folks would be up in arms. It’s really quite sad to see people who think their religious opinion gives them the right to tell others how to live.

    • AJ2

      God bless KIM! Heavenly father protect her and send her your blessings.

  • Dave_L

    Many people become Christians and can no longer continue their line of work as a matter of conscience. They find something else more in line with their faith. It is no different in this situation.

    Staying at home raising kids is a good thing.

    “That they (older women) may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” (Titus 2:4–5)

  • Bacchus

    Pray for this godless judge as the wrath of God is upon him

    • raytheist

      “godless judge”? He’s Catholic, so he’s a Christian. And throughout the New Testament it is clear that the ruling authorities are appointed by your god (supposedly) and must be obeyed. Most, if not all, the County Clerks in Kentucky are probably Christian, but they know how to separate personal belief from public service and doing the job they are paid to do. Issuing a marriage license ONLY means the County Clerk has verified that the couple meets the LEGAL qualifications for marriage; there is no room for her to pass moral judgment and give personal approval for their relationships. Otherwise, she’s already guilty of giving her spiritual approval for the guy who beats his wife, or rents his step-kids out to molesters. You see? If she’s afraid of passing personal approval on bad relationships, she’s already done that many times over. She knows she is wrong and she knows she is just hiding behind a veil of “religious freedom” to hide her bigotry against same-sex couples. If she were really concerned about some imaginary spiritual implication, why isn’t she also begging forgiveness for allowing wife-beaters to get married?

      • LadyGreenEyes

        One, that isn’t an obvious conclusion, by a long shot. Two, no they ere not, if they violated God’ laws. Three, she has a right to her beliefs, even at work, and is to be applauded for standing up for those rights.

      • Happy Critic

        With Catholics like him, who needs Satanists?

      • Bacchus

        There are many pretend Christians out there. No morals no justice no brains.

  • FC1919

    You have my 100% support Kim. Stand firm on Gods word. Those who did this to you will suffer punishment like they have never known before.

    • raytheist

      If you review ALL the facts of the case, and all the court rulings along the way, you will understand that she did this to herself.

      • FC1919

        She did not!

  • RoundRocker

    She made her choice. Now she must live with the consequences of her actions. She had many opportunities to stay out of jail, even up to today. All she had to do was allow another clerk to issue the licenses she wouldn’t. She got what she deserved.

    • John_33

      She’s ultimately responsible if she let’s her deputy clerks issue the licenses. It’s the same thing.

      • raytheist

        Well, she’s in jail and the Deputy Clerks are going to process marriage licenses anyway, following Judge Bunning’s order.

        • John_33

          The issue is not whether others can issue licenses but religious freedom for those like Kim Davis. She didn’t give the order.

          • raytheist

            Her religious freedom is intact. She can believe whatever she wants, and conduct her personal life any way that she wants. She can’t run a government office according to her own personal religion. And there is nothing in the Constitution permitting her or anyone else to keep a job in the government that she is refusing to perform. Taxpayers should not pay her salary when she refuses to serve those same taxpayers.

          • John_33

            Her religious freedom is intact as she sits in jail? Please…

          • raytheist

            Yes, indeed. She is not being told to change her belief, not being denied access to her holy books. This isn’t about her personal religious freedom at all.

          • John_33

            Religious freedom goes beyond belief. You have to be able to live your beliefs. Come on. You even know this.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            It is quite easy for atheists to give up the religious freedoms of Christians. 🙂

          • John_33

            Indeed.

          • LadyGreenEyes

            …and apparently, Catholic judges….

          • Valri

            What have you got against Catholics?

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Nothing at all. I am simply not happy to see someone professing to be Christian taking the position he has, against a Christian woman for standing for her beliefs, and in effect, for homosexual marriage. A strong Christian judge should stand by God’s law, if the laws of man disagree with those of God. With the pope’s recent praise of an author who wrote a book teaching homosexual standards to small children, this looks like it could be the start of a disturbing trend. I cannot imagine that most Catholics would be happy for the RCC to support homosexuality.

          • Valri

            What if God’s law IS for homosexual marriage, and you have it completely wrong?

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Read your Bible. God’s Word is crystal clear on that issue. Homosexuality is a sin. a really, really not good sin. You can believe hat you want, of course, but the Word of God is clear on this issue.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            He is Catholic In Name Only, however. Here is a REAL Catholic:

            https://www .lifesitenews .com/news/archbishop-of-guam-gay-marriage-compromisers-are-answerable-to-the-supreme

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Sounds like a smart man, and a true Christian!

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            That’s because he is not American, hehe. 🙂

          • LadyGreenEyes

            I have to laugh, but wish I didn’t!

          • Elvia Young

            They fail to understand that our religion is not a social club. We aren’t only Christians in the church and in the privacy of our homes. We don’t leave our Christianity in the car along with our golf clubs. It’s the life we live. We are a Christian and it’s the blood and the breath in our body. We can’t separate from it or else our faith becomes dead. They make exceptions for everyone else but let a Christian say something and all of a sudden we are being bigots. We say let someone else do it or find another way and they hold a gavel to our head telling us to do it or else. Seriously. How many times does the law make exceptions. Christians are persecuted the world over so don’t tell us what it means to suffer. We aren’t afraid to stand up for our rights. This is just another reason why Christians voted for the marriage amendment. We knew things like this would happen. They said we would be free to live our lives, and keep our jobs. They said nothing would change. Apparently that was a lie. Nevertheless we knew it was and I am not surprised.

          • AJ2

            Amen. I’m a christian all the time ,everyday until I die.

          • Josey

            oh yes, according you who support this agenda, her beliefs are intact as long as she is a closet Christian and keeps those beliefs at home. Not how faith or obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ works, one walks in faith in God daily 24/7. Who is this judge or anyone to tell her to leave her faith in her car in the parking lot of the courthouse?

  • Jennifer Hollyfield

    That isn’t right putting that woman in jail for standing up for her beliefs. I am against homosexuality it is an abomination unto God they gonna put me in jail too.

  • LadyGreenEyes

    Well, now, that’s interesting! The judge that tossed her in jail is Roman Catholic? Huh…….big fan of the pope, no doubt!

    • Valri

      What’s that got to do with anything? So what if he’s Catholic?

      • LadyGreenEyes

        Catholic is supposed to mean Christian. if the pope praises the author of a pro-homosexual children’s book, and a Catholic judge stands for the law of men, when that law goes against the Word of God, that looks like a bad trend. I would never support church leadership that went against God’s Word. Remember the story of Rahab?

        • Valri

          So the pope praises a book teaching that you should be compassionate to homosexuals and that’s bad? What kind of Christianity do YOU practice?

          • LadyGreenEyes

            No, he praised a book that promotes that practice to small children. That isn’t the sort I practice, because condoning sin isn’t necessary to not condemn the sinner.

          • Valri

            Promoting the practice of being kind to gay people? Why shouldn’t small children be kind to gay people, and why should we hide from them the fact that gay people exist?

          • LadyGreenEyes

            Promoting the practice as normal, when it is a sin, is not a proper action for any Christian, much less for a leader of a church.

            Do you discuss with your children other mental illnesses? Other sins? I mean, gee, they exist, so small children should know about them, right? NOT!!

    • Emmanuel

      Like Pelosi agreeing with baby chop shops and saying her hail Mary’s every Sunday.

  • AJ2

    God will let her out and I will pray for her.God has a place for her in heaven not man. Stand your ground Kim. Do not let queers push you around.

  • Riaan Huysamen

    Rev 8 “To the angel of the church in Smyrna write:

    These are the words of him who is the First and the Last, who died and came to life again. 9 I know your afflictions and your poverty—yet you are rich! I know about the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. 10 Do not be afraid of what you are about to suffer. I tell you, the devil will put some of you in prison to test you,and you will suffer persecution for ten days. Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you life as your victor’s crown.

    11 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches. The one who is victorious will not be hurt at all by the second death.

  • Truthhurts24

    This awesome lady has the same faith as the early church in the book of acts. I thought I would never see someone with this much faith in these times when there is so much compromise and apostasy going on in the church. I pray for divine intervention for this lady situation. In Jesus Name!

    • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

      When she one day meets Christ her reward will be great. I too Pray for divine intervention for her as well. The bible says there will be a time we will be put in jail.We need to pray for her and others who will be jailed for standing up to their faith in Christ and His truth.

      • Truthhurts24

        She wants that hidden manna and white stone Christ promised those of us who overcome persecution in this life.

        • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

          And she will have it. What a day that will be.

          • Truthhurts24

            A very glorious one my sister in Christ

          • LadyFreeBird<In God I Trust

            One day we will all meet our brothers and sisters in Christ. We will meet the one who saved us through His love and forgiveness.

  • Emmanuel

    She preached.

  • gatekeeper96740

    This is from another commenter under Kentucky state law marriage is
    between a man and a woman. She was elected to office by the voters
    she is a upholding Kentucky state law.”Kim is asking the perfect
    question: ‘Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples
    a marriage license?’ That simple question is giving many in Congress
    a civics lesson that they never got in grade school.

    The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law. They only made a ruling
    on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law
    allowing for same-sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional
    authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples.”
    Great comment.

    • humbleatheist

      SCOTUS ruled that a ban on homosexual marriage is illegal. You obviously don’t understand that.
      She has no choice in this matter, and while she is happily trampling on the rights of other US citizens, her trampling wil not last much longer.

      • gatekeeper96740

        Congress makes the laws NOT SCOTUS. Congress has never discussed it.

        • humbleatheist

          SCOTUS didn’t make a law, they ruled that a ban on homosexual marriages is unconstitutional. This isn’t hard to understand.

          • Josey

            Then what exactly was she held in contempt of court for if she didn’t break a law or commit a crime? Because she refused his order to issue licenses which hasn’t been made a law?

      • gatekeeper96740

        You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all
        constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one
        which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges
        are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others,
        the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their
        corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office
        for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the
        elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single
        tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the
        corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It
        has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign
        within themselves.— Thomas Jefferson.

  • gatekeeper96740

    Guest Blog by Anonymous Kentucky Attorney

    In February 2014, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway, citing
    a “separate ethical canon for prosecutors and elected officers”
    and a considered personal “feel[ing],” refused to do his duty to
    defend the Kentucky Constitution and the voice of the 75%
    of Kentuckians who overwhelming affirmed marriage as between one man
    and one woman.

  • gatekeeper96740

    You seem … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all
    constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one
    which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges
    are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others,
    the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their
    corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office
    for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the
    elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single
    tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the
    corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It
    has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign
    within themselves.— Thomas Jefferson.

    • humbleatheist

      “What all agree on is probably right. What no two agree in most probably is wrong.”
      Thomas Jefferson

  • Josey

    While the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) had requested that Davis be heavily fined until she bends…this request that ACLU requested reminds me of another’s statement that he will make all buckle to the sodomite agenda. Also reminds me of forcing one to bow down. Daniel chapter 3. Keep the faith, be strong and of good courage. She puts to shame Governor Beshear and all who “claim to be christian” and yet who are bowing down to another god. A false god that is no god, thought I’d better clarify and edit that. Seems to me that this president and his administration is good at bending over and they want everyone else to bend over too not only in this agenda but in the world. There is only one true and righteous judge, His name is Jesus and He’s coming soon and everyone will bow down and confess He is Lord. Even so Come Lord Jesus.

  • billinghamboy

    Very brave lady!How ridiculous that it should come to this,we now have to comply to disgusting new laws or pay a price.This she has done and will be vindicated.

    • Valri

      This ridiculous woman is trying to say her personal beliefs trump the law. You have to jail people who think that way, for everyone’s safety.

  • Nidalap

    For shame, men of America! How many of you would have knuckled under if you’d been threatened with a simple lawsuit? Look on this bravery, then take a look in the mirror. Can you even meet your own eyes? Hmph!

  • DNelson

    That she turned down a very reasonable comprise speaks volumes as to her true motives.

    • BarkingDawg

      Are people finally starting to notice that it’s all about her?

  • Dave_L

    Sorry, I cannot agree with many posters supporting Kim. I believe you are lowering the bar on what constitutes true valor for Christ.

    1. It is doubtful Kim is a Christian.

    a. She went to Church to appease a dying relative. Not from Godly sorrow that works repentance.

    b. Her Church rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. This in itself produces a false god, an idol they worship.

    2. They believe salvation occurs as a result of repentance. This is Salvation by Works.

    a. Instead of trusting in the work of Christ on the cross to save them, they trust in Baptism and Speaking in Tongues. (Tongues ceased sometime between the end of the New Testament writings and the early second century).

    3. She is living an adulterous lifestyle having been divorced and remarried. Only death breaks the marriage bond. This is hypocrisy while she at the same time condemns gay marriage.

    4. She is stealing from the government by accepting pay she is unwilling to work for. Even if it is a matter of conscience, we should find a different line of work. Paul expects Christian women to stay home and tend to their kids.

    • BarkingDawg

      $80 grand a year.

      In a poor rural county.

    • SR Foxley

      I’m pretty sure Kim Davis is basically a conman. She’s doing everything she can to play the part of a Christian martyr on the national stage so that gullible Christians will give her money when this is all over. She’s like a modern-day pharisee. And “she has her reward.”

      If she were sincere in her faith, she could just resign and trust Christ to take care of her and give her a better job that doesn’t require her to do things that might violate her faith.

      In any case, don’t give her money: That would reduce her reward in heaven.

  • BarkingDawg

    So, if Kim Davis were a Muslim, and refused to offer any public services to any women unless they were wearing a burka, that would be OK, right?

    • BarkingDawg

      Anyone?

      • SFBruce

        That’s a really great question. Of course, that would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and therefore unconstitutional, just as Kim Davis has done.

        • BarkingDawg

          Exactly.

  • DNelson

    That picture should make for a very good book cover.

    • Bezukhov

      Steven King is probably writing something as we speak.

  • FoJC_Forever

    What a screwed up justice system. Putting someone in jail over a piece of paper which doesn’t cause anyone to be Married in the first place. The government doesn’t decide who is Married and who is not. The government’s ruling on “marriage” only means this nation is closer to serving as the Antichrist’s bride. It continues to slaughter the innocent. The statue of liberty is an idol set forth as a symbol of freedom, but is simply a lie. So many wicked things are happening in this country, and have been for quite some time. To spend time, effort, and resources trying to force the Wicked to comply with God’s Word is futile.

    America is the Great Harlot, as prophesied in Scripture. It is simply fulfilling its role in the End Times.

    • SFBruce

      “The government doesn’t decide who is Married and who is not.”

      When it comes to civil marriage, the state is the only entity which decides what it is and what it is not. You can join a church that teaches that same sex intimacy is sinful, you even start one if you don’t like the ones that exist. You can continue to try and convince others that it’s wrong, and even lie or use long discredited stereotypes in the process. You don’t have to associate with gay people, or like them.

      • FoJC_Forever

        Civil marriage is irrelevant in God’s eyes. An evil and adulterous generation embraces homosexuality. Hacking web sites and computers looking to “out” those struggling with Sin will not make homosexuality any better. It is Sin, and homosexuals cannot be Married.

        Judgement is coming. You are found wanting. Turn from Evil and ask Jesus (the) Christ for Salvation before it’s too late.

        • DNelson

          “Civil marriage is irrelevant in God’s eyes.”

          If that is the case, then Ms. Davis has no basis for her refusal of a civil marriage license, does she? After all, it is “irrelevant” in God’s eyes.

          • FoJC_Forever

            When you are close to your first death, you will realize how much time you wasted harassing Christians and promoting unbelief.

          • DNelson

            Harass: subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation.

            In what way have I “harassed” Christians? In what way have I promoted “unbelief”? I strongly support the right of people to believe as they choose. I have a strong believe in God.

    • Josey

      It certainly is looking that way each new day.

    • DNelson

      “Putting someone in jail over a piece of paper which doesn’t cause anyone to be Married in the first place.”

      She was not put in jail over a piece of paper. She was put into jail for defying a court ruling. That is the way our legal system works in the US. She was offered to opportunity for release with the deal being that she would not have to issue licenses herself, but that she would not interfere with other members of her staff doing so. But, of course, that wasn’t good enough. It was not sufficient that she would be able to not have to issue licenses, she wanted everyone else in the office to conform to her beliefs.

      Selfish hypocrite.

      • FoJC_Forever

        A “marriage” license from the government is just a piece pf paper and has no standing concerning Marriage. When you stand before God in Judgement, this Reality will be apparent to you.

        • DNelson

          “A “marriage” license from the government is just a piece pf paper and has no standing concerning Marriage.”

          If that’s the case, then what is her issue?

          • FoJC_Forever

            Ask her.

          • DNelson

            Perhaps you could let her know that a State marriage license is just a piece a paper and has no standing concerning marriage. That would probably ease her mind.

          • FoJC_Forever

            Perhaps you could have some courage and let her know yourself. You’ll have to also explain to her how you like to twist words and meanings to your own device, but then that might cause her to ignore you.

            A piece of paper doesn’t make someone Married, as God has defined it and shall remain the only meaning for Marriage. However, this Truth doesn’t mean people are to be forced to use this piece of paper to validate a “marriage” which is against God’s Will and Word.

            God created Marriage, people wrote laws to legally establish the Institution, but now the corrupt culture in the world wants to redefine it to incorporate their own Sin. This didn’t start with homosexuality, it started with No-fault Divorce. Homosexuals and their supporters are now using the “marriage” laws to force people to accept and participate in their Sin, and this is only one part of the demonic agenda being pushed in America (and the world).

          • DNelson

            “Perhaps you could have some courage and let her know yourself. ”

            You’re the one who said is was true, so obviously you would be best in explaining it.

            “You’ll have to also explain to her how you like to twist words and meanings to your own device”

            What words and meanings have I have twisted to my own device?

            “A piece of paper doesn’t make someone Married, as God has defined it and shall remain the only meaning for Marriage. ”

            So you said, which means that she should have no issue with providing the license.

            “this Truth doesn’t mean people are to be forced to use this piece of paper to validate a “marriage” which is against God’s Will and Word.”

            But it’s not a marriage, therefore it can’t be validated, can it?

            “God created Marriage”

            You are certainly free to believe that if you care to. However, the reality is that marriage was around a long time before the Christian concept of God came into being.

            “Homosexuals and their supporters are now using the “marriage” laws to force people to accept and participate in their Sin”

            How are marriage laws being used to “force people to accept and participate in their Sin”?

          • FoJC_Forever

            Duis auctor turpis nec porttitor convallis. Proin dignissim ipsum est,
            vel gravida tortor efficitur et. Aenean at pretium nibh, tempus cursus
            erat. Phasellus dictum consequat risus, id pharetra ante porta porta. Ut
            imperdiet a mauris vitae laoreet. Morbi lacinia ipsum diam, at dapibus
            sapien aliquam in. Vivamus aliquet dui lorem.

          • DNelson

            LOL

  • Bezukhov

    So this all boils down to the fact, for which Ms. Davis is right now sitting in the Stony Lonesome, not only won’t sign licenses herself, but also orders that her subordinates not sign them either. I wonder what sorts of punishments Ms Davis will rain down upon the clerks under her supervision should they disobey Ms. Davis and follow their own consciences, which don’t mind singing said licenses? Why should Ms. Davis’ conscience trump everyone elses? Where were Christian ever told to impose their “conscience” upon everyone under the threat of any sort of unpleasantness?

  • WorldGoneCrazy

    Defying the law is only OK when progressives do it:

    http://thefederalist .com/2015/09/03/kim-davis-shows-that-breaking-the-law-is-only-okay-when-progressives-do-it/

    • Valri

      Her religious beliefs are not being violated. She is free to attend her church, she can lead her Bible study class, and she can preach hellfire and damnation against gay people to her heart’s content.

      But not on the taxpayer’s dime. That is not what freedom of religion is all about.

      • John_33

        Religious freedom go beyond beliefs. You need to be able to live out your beliefs, and that goes beyond a church building.

        • Gene Schunek

          For the nth time: Your religious and personal beliefs cannot be used to discriminate against others who have different beliefs. No, you do not have the so-called religious freedom to violate other’s freedom. Your freedom, religious or otherwise, stops where mine and others begin.

          • John_33

            I just want to know, why does your freedom outrank mine? Why doesn’t your freedom stop where mine begins?

          • Gene Schunek

            I didn’t say that it did. You have an overweening opinion of yourself and your so-called freedoms. You, nor anyone else has the right to decide which laws you will or won’t obey. Frankly, I believe people like you are as dangerous as Isis. There is no difference in kind between far right-religions whether they be christian or muslim

          • John_33

            We don’t have a choice in what laws we will or won’t obey? Would you have told that to government officials in the North after the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 passed?

      • WorldGoneCrazy

        You are confusing freedom to worship with religious freedom, the latter which is applicable to ALL aspects on one’s life – except for Christians. 🙂

        • Valri

          Religious freedom AND freedom to worship do not mean you are free to discriminate against others. Meaning, you are not free to deny a marriage license when it is legal to obtain one. In doing so, you are inflicting the rules of your religion on others who do not practice it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Religious freedom AND freedom to worship do not mean you are free to discriminate against others.”

            Then why are you discriminating against Kim Davis by forcing her into jail for not violating her conscience?!? 🙂

            “Meaning, you are not free to deny a marriage license when it is legal to obtain one.”

            Of course we are! The “marriage” we are denying licenses for is an abomination to our God. If you don’t understand it, go ask a Muslim, hehe. 🙂

          • Valri

            “Then why are you discriminating against Kim Davis by forcing her into jail for not violating her conscience?!? :-)”

            Kim Davis went to jail for contempt of court.

            “Of course we are! The “marriage” we are denying licenses for is an abomination to our God. If you don’t understand it, go ask a Muslim, hehe. :-)”

            Find me any Muslim, or someone OTHER than a fundamentalist Christian, who works for the county and is denying people their right to marriage. Nope, it’s only a handful of sore loser fundamentalists “exercising the right to religious freedom” by withholding what isn’t theirs to withhold. smh

            And by the way, it sure sounds to me like what you’re after is a Christian theocracy. People have the right to not believe in your God and still get married.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Kim Davis went to jail for contempt of court.”

            Haha – yes a court found her in contempt of asserting her Constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom to not affirm a “marriage” that is nowhere found in the Constitution.

            “It’s interesting that gay activists who praised SF mayor Gavin Newsom for illegally issuing marriage licenses now vilify Kim Davis.

            Let’s also remember that while Newsom, who was sworn in as mayor under national and state laws that recognized marriage as the union of one man and one woman, violated his oath of office to uphold that law, the exact opposite was true of Davis. When she was sworn in, Kentucky did not recognize same-sex “marriage.”

            … When Gavin Newsom refused to submit to the law in 2004, he was a hero. When Kim Davis refuses to submit to the law, she is a bigot and a monster. (And make no mistake about it: His actions were far more flamboyant and aggressive than hers, and whereas she is a self-professed “very private person” who does not want the spotlight to the point of being overwhelmed and in tears because of the national attention, Newsom actively sought it out.)

            And where was the national condemnation of then Attorney General Eric Holder when he instructed attorneys general nationwide that they were not obligated to defend state laws — meaning, specifically, bans on same-sex “marriage” — if they found them to be discriminatory?

            Ironically, liberal websites like the Huffington Post, which are leading the assault on Kim Davis, celebrated Gavin Newsom’s actions as recently as 18 months ago in the article, “Ten Years Ago Today, San Francisco Set The Stage For Marriage Equality.”

            The article begins: “Ten years ago today, San Francisco issued the United States’ first same-sex marriage licenses — a move then-mayor Gavin Newsom ordered of the city clerk after President George W. Bush declared his stance against them in his State of the Union address. The marriages were annulled by a Supreme Court ruling four months later, but the landmark event set the stage for the national fight for marriage equality that’s still blazing forward.”

            And Newsom, portrayed as a champion and icon, is quoted as saying in 2004, “I took an oath of office to bear truth, faith and allegiance to the constitution of the state of California, and there is nothing in that constitution that says that I have the right to discriminate against people on any basis. … And I simply won’t do that. And if that means my political career ends, so be it.”

            What, then, is the difference between Newsom, who did not lose his job and who spent no time in jail, and Davis, who was told by the judge that she would be jailed until she complied?” — Michael Brown

            “Find me any Muslim, or someone OTHER than a fundamentalist Christian, who works for the county”

            Oh, so if there are no Muslims in these positions, then by your “logic,” that means they would not be refusing just like Kim Davis?!? What type of absurdist are you? Existentialist or Zen Buddhist or what?

            “People have the right to not believe in your God and still get married.”

            And people who DO believe in God, Herr Valri, have a specifically spelled out right of religious freedom to refrain from any action that violates their sincerely held conscience and to be protected for it. I thought you gays LIKED special protections, hehe?!? 🙂

          • Valri

            “Haha – yes a court found her in contempt of asserting her
            Constitutionally guaranteed right to religious freedom to not affirm a “marriage” that is nowhere found in the Constitution.”

            The Constitution does NOT guarantee her the right to prevent people of the same sex from getting married, and that’s what she was trying to do. It wasn’t enough for her to be carted off to prison in shame and embarrassment, oh no. She wouldn’t allow her other STAFF to do the job either, so I think that pretty much tears to shreds your idea that she’s just exercising her “religious freedom”. Yeah. “I won’t do the job I took a sworn oath to do and I won’t allow others to do it either.” Classy lady.

            And you can stop calling it a “marriage”. It’s a marriage. It’s legal now and very real.

            “Oh, so if there are no Muslims in these positions, then by your “logic,” that means they would not be refusing just like Kim Davis?!? What type of absurdist are you? Existentialist or Zen Buddhist or what?”

            Well, find me one who does. You won’t, and the reason you won’t is because if they had any moral issues with it, they would have done the honorable thing and resigned their position – as Kim Davis did NOT do. KIM DAVIS is the “absurdist” here.

            “And people who DO believe in God, Herr Valri, have a specifically spelled out right of religious freedom to refrain from any action that violates their sincerely held conscience and to be protected for it.”

            As I said, she should have moved aside then and kept her honor, such as it was, intact. Instead she was a spoiled brat who stamped her feet and held her breath until her face turned blue. She wasn’t going to do it and she wasn’t going to allow anyone else to do it either. Just how far do you want to push your ridiculous idea of religious freedom?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “The Constitution does NOT guarantee her the right to prevent people of the same sex from getting married, and that’s what she was trying to do.”

            She was asserting her religious freedom – she is guaranteed that by the Constitution. Having her name on a gay “marriage” certificate is the equivalent of asking her to spit on a Bible. It is way more repulsive than having to drive 20 minutes to another clerk. It is disgusting and intolerable – worse than asking a Muslim to eat pork.

            “It wasn’t enough for her to be carted off to prison in shame and embarrassment, oh no.”

            She is not in shame or embarrassed one bit – any more than MLK, Jr. was when he was carted off. She is sleeping quite well and her conscience is good according to reports. She is a prisoner of conscience, nothing less. The ones who should be ashamed are the gays who were shouting “love wins” as a Christian was jailed for her beliefs. But, of course, gays know no shame. Neither do atheists – it does not exist for them.

            “She wouldn’t allow her other STAFF to do the job either, so I think that pretty much tears to shreds your idea that she’s just exercising her “religious freedom”.”

            That is because HER name goes on those certificates – she cannot allow that, no true Christian could. Now, they ARE issuing the certificates, without her name. Good luck with those. 🙂 But, she remains in prison. Weird huh? “Love” and “tolerance” win, hehe. 🙂 If you keep repeating it over and over, you just might start to believe it. 🙂

            “And you can stop calling it a “marriage”. It’s a marriage. It’s legal now and very real.”

            Only in the minds of the deluded ones. Did somebwody get his feewings hurt? At least I won’t be put in jail for it – for now anyway. 🙂 Gay “marriage,” gay “marriage,” gay “marriage.” 🙂

            “they would have done the honorable thing and resigned their position”

            Breaking news, Valri: religious freedom does NOT mean that when one desires to assert it, they have to resign from their job. That would be laughable, if it were not so pathetic. Religious freedom is present in ALL aspects of our lives, not just the one that the godless get to pick for us. 🙂 You must be thinking of freedom of worship, which is safe, for now. 🙂 So easy for the godless to give up religious freedom.

            “Instead she was a spoiled brat who stamped her feet and held her breath until her face turned blue.”

            I didn’t see that. Can you show me where her face turned blue? I think the only one with the blue face is Valri. It should be red BTW – you should be ashamed of yourself. But, on atheism, there is no such thing as shame – you are all just animals doing the animal thing. 🙂

            “Just how far do you want to push your ridiculous idea of religious freedom?”

            It may be ridiculous to a godless one like you, but our founders, who were slightly wiser than you are, found it to be most important – so important that they wrote it into the Constitution, where gay “marriage” will never be found, only invented in the minds of the deluded ones.

          • Valri

            “She was asserting her religious freedom – she is guaranteed that by the Constitution. Having her name on a gay “marriage” certificate is the equivalent of asking her to spit on a Bible. It is way more repulsive than having to drive 20 minutes to another clerk. It is disgusting and intolerable – worse than asking a Muslim to eat pork.”

            Terribly sorry she feels that way. However, her rigid and narrow faith doesn’t determine the law. She works for the county. She can resign and let someone else do the work she is bound by law to do. Or she can be jailed. That’s how it works.

            “She is not in shame or embarrassed one bit”

            She’s been utterly HUMILIATED. That she doesn’t recognize it herself it irrelevant. She is a law-breaking laughingstock. She’s a poster child for faith-based bigotry and hatred.

            “That is because HER name goes on those certificates – she cannot allow that, no true Christian could.”

            Really? So any time she went on holidays in the past the person filling in was signing bogus marriage licenses? And no true Scotsman, excuse me, Christian, follows the laws of the land? I think you should rethink that one a bit Charlie.

            “Only in the minds of the deluded ones. Did somebwody get his feewings hurt? At least I won’t be put in jail for it – for now anyway. 🙂 Gay “marriage,” gay “marriage,” gay “marriage.” :-)”

            Just like a child having a tantrum. Too bad the law disagrees with you, and the law is the only thing that matters, not what a handful of a SPECIFIC denomination of Christians think. And sorry you can’t get through a message without name calling. You might want to work on that.

            “Breaking news, Valri: religious freedom does NOT mean that when one desires to assert it, they have to resign from their job.”

            Breaking news WGC – religious freedom does NOT mean that your faith overrides the laws of the county. And if she’s not going to uphold the law, she can move aside and allow someone else to do it. Either way, same-sex marriage goes through. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.

            “I didn’t see that. Can you show me where her face turned blue? I think the only one with the blue face is Valri. It should be red BTW – you should be ashamed of yourself. But, on atheism, there is no such thing as shame – you are all just animals doing the animal thing. :-)”

            It is obviously an expression, and one you are no doubt very familiar with. BTW, you should be ashamed of not just your refusal to accept the law but your belief that Christianity is about denying rights to people in love. I think that’s just awful.
            It’s also downright bizarre that you actually think that because someone is atheist that they can’t have morals. Are only Christians allowed to?

            “but our founders, who were slightly wiser than you are, found it to be most important – so important that they wrote it into the Constitution”

            Where you, to this day, completely misunderstand its meaning and use it for selfish and hateful purposes.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “She can resign and let someone else do the work she is bound by law to do. Or she can be jailed. That’s how it works.”

            Not at all – sorry you are ignorant of the Constitution and the meaning of religious freedom. But, then again, it is so easy for an atheist to give up the religious freedoms of Christians – especially when it has been shows that atheists and gays are so hateful and violent. 🙂

            “She’s a poster child for faith-based bigotry and hatred.”

            More name-calling by the so-called “rational” one. Of course, on atheism, there is nothing wrong with bigotry and hatred – since there are no grounds for objective moral values and duties on atheism. And your “pope” and “cardinals” agree with me here:

            “In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are oing to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless
            indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

            “Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.” A-theist William Provine

            “The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).

            “no purpose, no evil and no good,” “no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life,” “ethics is illusory”

            There you have it – that is YOUR world. You don’t get to borrow the existence of objective moral values and duties from the world of the theist – they do not exist to you – they are merely flavors of ice cream. When you make objective moral claims, as you did by objectively denouncing “bigot” and “hatred”, you are actually acknowledging the existence of God – for which I thank you very much! 🙂

            “So any time she went on holidays in the past the person filling in was signing bogus marriage licenses?”

            Her clerks stamp her name – but only with her approval. (Which is why they are not doing so now.) You really are ignorant of the basic facts here, aren’t you? Maybe you should read more, and talk less – you clearly need some study time.

            “And no true Scotsman, excuse me, Christian, follows the laws of the land?”

            Not when they conflict with God’s laws. Have you NEVER read the Bible?!? Have you never heard of Harriet Tubman, Dr. MLK, Jr, Rosa Parks, etc – all violaters of man’s law? I realize that, as an atheist, you are just for the laws of the jungle, and you will receive the consequences of those laws in the next life, so you should be happy. 🙂

            “Too bad the law disagrees with you, and the law is the only thing that matters”

            Haha – yes, until you meet your Maker, that is! Then, only His Law will matter. 🙂 I love it – you just proved that you would have returned slaves to their masters as required by law, you would have been for fire hoses on Negroes (who were most certainly violating the “only thing that matters” in your words), and you would have been all in on Jew gassing, which was quite legal. Thank you for showing me your moral depravity! 🙂 (Don’t feel bad, Pudding, I was an atheist for 42 years – I still remember those days well.)

            “religious freedom does NOT mean that your faith overrides the laws of the county.”

            My faith is protected by the laws and specifically so in the Constitution, unlike gay “marriage” which nowhere exists in the Constitution. 🙂

            “It’s also downright bizarre that you actually think that because someone is atheist that they can’t have morals.”

            Objective morals do not exist on atheism. (see above) Take it up with your “pope” and “cardinals” and atheists down through the ages. It is not that atheists cannot sometimes behave (sociology) objectively moral, it is that objective morality does not even exist (ontology) on atheism. So, when you DO behave morally in an objective sense, it is either an accident or because you are stealing from God. 🙂 Of course, even atheists have some sort of conscience, and this epistemological knowledge is described in Roman’s 2:15.

            “Where you, to this day, completely misunderstand its meaning and use it for selfish and hateful purposes.”

            How so? We have rights – you have rights. Your right to not have to drive 20 minutes does not override Kim’s right to not be jailed because of your hatred, bigotry, and Christ-phobia.

            Oh, and BTW, when you wrote “selfish” and “hatred” there in the context of the existence of objective moral values and duties, you just acknowledged the existence of God twice more – for which I thank you! 🙂

            gay “marriage” or gay non-marriage?

          • Valri

            “sorry you are ignorant of the Constitution and the meaning of religious freedom.”

            If I’m so ignorant, how come practically everyone in the world agrees with me? Why are news agencies, commentators, lawmakers, etc. saying she broke the law?

            “More name-calling by the so-called “rational” one. Of course, on
            atheism, there is nothing wrong with bigotry and hatred – since there are no grounds for objective moral values and duties on atheism. And your “pope” and “cardinals” agree with me here:”

            I have no pope and no cardinals, and that quote doesn’t mean that atheists cannot have morals. I am shocked you think that’s what Dawkins was saying. With a good upbringing and even a shred of empathy, everyone knows bigotry and hatred are bad. Not just Christians. Nice try.

            “You really are ignorant of the basic facts here, aren’t you? Maybe you should read more, and talk less – you clearly need some study time.”

            So do you. Kim’s lawyer is trying to say the licenses are worthless. However, they aren’t.

            “Have you never heard of Harriet Tubman, Dr. MLK, Jr, Rosa Parks, etc – all violaters of man’s law? I realize that, as an atheist, you are just for the laws of the jungle, and you will receive the consequences of those laws in the next life, so you should be happy. :-)”

            Why do you think those people are famous? They exposed things in the law that were wrong and stood up for them. Kim Davis should in no way be compared to MLK. Kim Davis would instead be the bus driver who refused to drive the bus after Rosa Parks refused to vacate her seat. Kim Davis wants to stand in the way of the happiness of two people and refuse their union. History is NOT going to be kind to her. When her name’s uttered it will be alongside names like the KKK.

            “Haha – yes, until you meet your Maker, that is! Then, only His Law will matter.”

            Your paranoid revenge fantasy again. Have fun with that.

            “you just proved that you would have returned slaves to their masters as required by law, you would have been for fire hoses on Negroes (who were most certainly violating the “only thing that matters” in your words), and you would have been all in on Jew gassing, which was quite legal.”

            No I didn’t. Anywhere. Some laws are bad and need to be changed. This, however, isn’t one of them.

            The rest of your post is a cut and paste job and not worth my time to respond to.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Free at last, Free at last, Thank God Almighty Kim Davis is free at last.” God’s true love wins! Gaystapo hate loses! Haha! Go weep, go gnash your teeth! 🙂

          • Valri

            She has to allow her deputies to sign the marriage licenses. Love wins again. She has done NOTHING to curb marriage licenses for all.

          • Joe Soap

            I find it quite amazing that Ms Davis, who has been married and divorced herself several times, would have no trouble issuing a license to someone who may have been married and divorced 10 times therefore making a total mockery of marriage yet refuses to issue a license to a same sex couple that may have been together for decades and never married before.

            This is why she is getting very little sympathy from people outside of bloviating bible thumpers like you. The woman is a total hypocrite.

            What if she was a muslim and only issued licenses to people who promised to marry under sharia law? What if she didn’t like jews marrying christians or blacks marrying whites? Just where do you draw the line when it comes to imposing your own particular beliefs onto others? This is why she is in jail. She was elected to perform a simple task. Issue marriage licenses to those who are legally entitled to request one. If she cannot do this simple task without imposing her own particular religious views then she is free to resign and give the job to someone who will do it without favouring or disadvantaging any particular group of people.

  • Emmanuel

    And still no word from our Christian President.

    • Uncle Jed

      Well the way I see it….I woodin be holdin me breath ifin I was you.

      • Emmanuel

        yup, he speaking out would be a miracle from God.

        • SR Foxley

          Why should he speak out? Kim Davis is in the wrong here. Many other Christians think so, too.

    • DNelson

      About?

  • doree10

    Praying…

  • BarkingDawg

    Her lawyers have their own agenda and that is not aligned with their client’s best interest.

  • Josey

    I keep hearing that she took an oath to uphold the constitution so she should either issue the licenses or resign but the question still hasn’t been answered which is what constitutional law has she broken?

    • BarkingDawg

      Well we can start with the establishment clause, then move on to the due process, and equal protection clauses.

      • Nidalap

        That seems to cover what the judge did, but what about Ms. Davis? 🙂

  • jael2

    To all those who can attend, there will be a prayer rally for Kim on Saturday, Sept 5th, 11:00 AM at the Carter County Jail, Grayson Kentucky. Spread the word…

    • BarkingDawg

      That won’t get her out, you know.

  • BarkingDawg

    You know, I can just picture Kim Daivis dancing around her cell shouting: “MISERY IS ALIVE, MISERY IS ALIVE! OH, This whole house is going to be full of romance, OOOH, I AM GOING TO PUT ON MY LIBERACE RECORDS!

  • SR Foxley

    Has it not occurred to anyone else here that Kim Davis seems to be trying really hard to go to jail? She’s had many opportunities to end this conflict in ways that do not violate her faith at all including the compromise offered by the judge above. At the very least, she could just resign and trust the Lord to take care of her and find her a better job that does not include responsibilities that might make her violate her faith.

    No, Kim wants to be in jail because it suits her purpose fine. The more she’s seen as being persecuted for her Christian faith, the more likely she’s going to be seen as a martyr– and the last few people who made national news as Big Media Christian Martyrs made off like bandits! (Think of the bakers who refused to bake the wedding cake for the gay couple. Or the pizza shop owners who said they wouldn’t serve gays.) When she saw that gay couple come into her office after the supreme court ruling legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states she saw an opportunity– and dollar signs. Cha-ching!

    Kim Davis is a modern-day pharisee. Instead of humbly resigning and trusting Jesus to take care of her (which she could have done–and can still do whenever she wants– with no burden on her conscience), she instead chose to do everything in her power to create a media circus around herself. She’s like the hypocrites standing on the street corner in sack-cloth and ashes praying loudly so that everyone can hear them. Indeed, “they have their reward” has never been more true for Kim Davis. When this is all over, she’s never going to have to work another day in her life.

    Let it never be said that Kim Davis is stupid. She’s in jail right now because she very much wants to be. It plays right into her plan. (Heck, she even thanked the judge for sending her there.)

    In any case, whatever you do, DO NOT give money to Kim: That would reduce her reward in heaven.

    • Nidalap

      So, THAT’S what the fox says! (^_^)

  • Adeyemi Iranlade Festus

    God is aware of ur struggles Davis He will grant you victory in Jesus name..The Angels that are for you are more than the devil agent against you….Relax…Through this the Gospel of Jesus is being preached already ….

  • Joe Soap

    Why not start one of those crowd funding things like they did for those pizza guys? She’ll be a millionaire by the time she gets out. Then she can be a martyr all the way to the bank.

  • Roger Peritone

    The laws of the U.S. are not hostile to the beliefs of xians…what the law DOES do is try to stop xians from imposing their views on others.

    Not the same thing as having your own views suppressed. She is not “standing up” for her religious rights…she is using her job’s position to force HER religious views on others.

    She should have been fired. Open and shut case.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Well, except for the fact that there is no one who can “fire” her because she’s at the top of her food chain. But other than that, yes.

  • Elie Challita

    Look, if this woman didn’t want to issue the licenses herself that’s perfectly fine. She has an entire staff at her disposal, and any of them could have issued the licenses. She could have very easily stepped aside and protected her own religious freedom without interfering in other people’s lives.
    But she didn’t; not only did she refuse to do her job, she also prevented everyone else in that office from doing theirs. She wasted taxpayer funds and denied her constituents basic human rights by going on a half-assed crusade. And she expected to still get paid for it too.
    Kim Davis isn’t a martyr for religious freedom: She’s an idiot playing at one.

  • Jeff Claiborne

    The definition of marriage did not change at my house. Our family stills honors the original design of God, our creator and recognizes that God never gave human government or human courts permission to tamper with it. I reject political religion of Statism (the religious worship of the state) and its violation of the establishment clause in the first amendment at its must fundamental level.

    • BigHobbit

      You may have whatever definition you like, in your life.
      The govt, on the other hand may only act, if it can act constitutionally.

  • Croquet_Player

    How amusing of them.

  • acontraryview

    Interesting viewpoint. If you don’t like a SCOTUS ruling, just ignore it. Reminds me of: “Segregation today…segregation tomorrow…segregation forever!”

  • Elie Challita

    Oh for pity’s sake…
    SCOTUS doesn’t hand out negotiable opinions. They judge on whether a law, or a particular item or action, is constitutional, and the judgment is binding until overruled by a constitutional amendment or an ulterior SCOTUS ruling.

    By your logic any private citizen, as long as they are convinced of their own opinion, can tell any court to take a hike when they disagree with it. Try pulling that one in court next time you’re being prosecuted and let me know how that goes.

    I’m not saying you have to slavishly obey every judicial diktat: Feel free to object or defy it, but until you get a successful case that overrules the precedent or get a constitutional amendment passed, you bloody well should expect to face the legal consequences of breaking the law.

  • BigHobbit

    Equal rights and justice for all. Even if your county clerk deems some to be unworthy.

  • BigHobbit

    If you swear an oath to uphold the law, you don’t cherry pick which law to uphold and which to ignore. If your religion disables you from honoring your oath, you resign before dishonoring your sacred oath.

  • BigHobbit

    A reasonable accommodation is to have someone else provide the services that the citizens are legally entitled to. An unreasonable accommodation is to hold an entire govt agency hostage to your own private Sharia law and prevent licenses to an entire county of taxpayers who pay your salary.