Kentucky Governor Accommodates Kim Davis’ Request to Remove Her Name From ‘Gay Marriage’ Licenses

Davis-compressedFRANKFORT, Ky. — The new governor of Kentucky has issued an executive order that accommodates county clerk Kim Davis’ request that her name be removed from the “marriage” licenses that her office is issuing to homosexuals.

The current license “creates a substantial burden on the freedom of religion of some county clerks and employees of their offices because the current form bears the name of the issuing county clerk,” Gov. Matt Bevin said in a statement on Wednesday. “And some county clerks and their employees sincerely believe that the presence of their name on the form implies their personal endorsement of, and participation in, same-sex marriage, which conflicts with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The governor ordered the Kentucky Department for Libraries and Archives to release new licenses that do not cite the county or the name of the county clerk. The documents also include a line for a signature for the “issuing official,” which may be any willing person in the office.

As previously reported, Davis had requested with the start of the new year that then-Gov. Steve Beshear allow for her name to be removed from any marriage licenses as the U.S. Supreme Court was set to consider the issue of same-sex “marriage.” After the high court opinion was issued in June, she was among those who refused to issue licenses—at least not with her name on them. Davis, who attends an Apostolic Pentecostal assembly, said that she would do so if her name was removed from the documents.

Her refusal soon went to court, and in September, U.S. District Judge David Bunning ordered that Davis issue the licenses despite her religious identity. As she continued to refuse to issue the licenses, Bunning ordered that she be placed behind bars until she was willing to comply. In the meantime, the judge arranged for a deputy clerk to sign the licences in her absence.

She was released from the Carter County Jail five days later after her attorneys filed an appeal of the contempt order, and also because Bunning was satisfied that her deputy clerks were providing the licenses instead.

Upon her release, Davis reiterated that all she wanted was an accommodation.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Since January of this year, I have asked Gov. Beshear, the Kentucky legislature–and more recently, Judge Bunning, for one simple thing: an accommodation for my religious beliefs regarding marriage that would allow me to serve the citizens of Rowan County without violating my conscience,” she said.

“My name or official title on the marriage certificate points to the same person—me, Kim Davis. To affix my name or authoritative title on a certificate that authorizes marriage that conflicts with God’s definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman violates my deeply held religious convictions and conscience,” Davis continued. “For me, this would be an act of disobedience to my God.”

She outlined that all she had been requesting is for her name to be removed from the licenses.

“While there are many accommodations available, the very simple accommodation I have proposed is to remove my name and my title as the clerk of Rowan County completely off the marriage license,” Davis stated. “These licenses could be issued under another authority including perhaps the Commonwealth of Kentucky or Gov. Beshear himself.”

However, some have said that an accommodation is a compromise and is not acceptable for one who professes Christ.

“We’re still allowing the evil to continue, and it totally nullifies the interposition of the lesser magistrate in abating the just judgment of God,” Matt Trewhella, pastor of Mercy Seat Christian Church in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and author of “The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate,” told Christian News Network.

“It’s extremely important for people to understand that the interposition of the lesser magistrate abates the just judgment of God,” he said, “but with the path they’re taking in Kentucky, it will not.”

Others state that Bevin doesn’t have a right to issue the executive order, and opine that his decree may result in a lawsuit.


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
  • Michael C

    *punchline at the end of the comment*

    Davis never actually requested an accommodation until it became obvious that she was facing real penalties in a federal court. For months, she had simply been refusing her duties.

    When Davis finally did outline a potential accommodation request, she presented it to an authority with no jurisdiction to accommodate her requests. Her lawyers seemed to have know idea what they were doing. If she wanted an accommodation, she should have gone directly to the Governor. If that failed, she should have sued the state. A federal court was not the venue for her request.

    Now on to her request of accommodation. The state government has an obligation to provide reasonable religious accommodation. Davis’ request was far from reasonable. She didn’t just want her name removed from the licenses. She wanted the licenses to be stripped of any reference to her, the title of her elected office (County Clerk), the name of the county, and any reference that ties any of the deputy clerks to the County office. When her ridiculous demands were ignored, she took it upon herself to unlawfully alter the official government documents to meet her personal wishes.

    Here’s where it starts to get funny. This issue was one of the primary features of Matt Bevin’s campaign for Governor, however, this change does not even come close to meeting Davis’ demands. According to what Davis and her lawyers have said, she’ll still refuse to follow the law.

    Lastly, the punchline. Bevin’s executive order says that marriage licenses will be altered to remove the name of the clerk. BUT! It also says that marriage certificates will stay exactly as they are. Marriage certificates require the signature of the issuing clerk.

    • Oboehner

      The “funny” part is why do some sexual deviants get to marry and others don’t?

      • afchief

        It is not about homos being able to marry. It is about them trying to destroy the institution of marriage. Homosexuals are looking for “normalcy” and “acceptance”. They will not find it in homo marriage. They will not find it with us Christians. Since, they cannot find peace and normalcy, they seek to destroy marriage and everything Christian in this country!.

        • gizmo23

          So you are one of the Christians trying to harm gays

          • afchief

            How?

          • Josey

            How by expressing his right to free speech, go find another avenue for your lying seeds you keep attempting to plant here. Not only that what he is saying is constitutionally correct. There is no ratification to the 14th amendment or this ruling opinion either by those who can make laws, Congress.

          • gizmo23

            No one is stopping his free speech.
            If you can’t handle dissent don’t post.

          • afchief

            Yep, what you said!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Luckily, Congress doesn’t need to make any laws for same sex marriage to be legal in all 50 states. And it is.

            I don’t know what the rest of your post means. “Ratification to the 14th Amendment or this ruling?” What does that mean?

          • afchief

            NOPE!!!! There is NO law stating homos can marry except in 3 states.

            Ohhhhh, show me the law, yessss show me the law, oh show me the law today,

          • Shaun D.

            Hahaha. We Christians couldn’t possibly do any more “harm” to you gays than what you’ve already done to yourselves, honestly.

          • gizmo23

            I am not gay

        • DevilSucker

          Four marriages
          Three different husbands
          Two illegitimate children

          …and the gays are out to “destroy the institution of marriage”?

          • afchief

            Where do you get the right to redefine marriage? I must have missed that in government class.

            When you have to redefine a word to make it cover something that it doesn’t, you already know that you’re wrong. It is amazing the lengths the gaystapo resorts to in order to try to “normalize” what is abnormal and a perversion in nature. The truth is that nobody really cares what these people do in private and I doubt that any would object to amending civil unions to cover the same benefits of marriage. But that isn’t the objective. Their objective is to destroy marriage, to destroy morals, to destroy Christianity regardless of what they are saying.

          • acontraryview

            “I must have missed that in government class.”

            It’s clear you missed the entire government class.

            How does entering into marriage destroy marriage, destroy morals, and destroy Christianity?

          • NGN

            why would I want to destroy my own marriage? just more cut n paste xtian talking points

          • Shaun D.

            And still not an “abomination” as God describes ALL homosexuality.

            God bless Kim Davis!

          • Angel Jabbins

            Since repenting of her sins and trusting in Christ as her Savior, how many more marriages and illegitimate children has she had? Zero since she is now a new creation in Christ and is committed to following Him. Gays have the same opportunity to repent, trust Christ, and have their lives transformed from a life of sin and oppression to a life of freedom and righteous standing with God through what Christ did for us on the cross.

        • Shaun D.

          Amen! Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 and Romans 1:24-32

        • acontraryview

          “It is about them trying to destroy the institution of marriage”

          How does getting married “destroy the institution of marriage”?

          • afchief

            Marriage, touches all aspects of society through a vast web of legal rights, privileges and acknowledgments. The relationship you’ve entered into is protected by law and must be legally recognized by everyone — your relatives, your banker, your insurance broker, your landlord, your doctor, your undertaker, everyone — even those who might have some objection to it, moral or otherwise.

            Therefore, no matter how much a person might object to same-sex marriage — might see it as sinful — he or she could easily become entangled in somebody else’s sin. And even if the aspect of legal compulsion tends to mitigate their guilt, they will likely consider themselves, at the least, morally compromised by what others have done. This is a concept that supporters of same-sex marriage would dismiss as sectarian and petty. To them what seems self-evident — indeed, what strikes them as morally imperative — is that they should be able to demand and receive any wedding cake they’re willing to pay for.

            To the Christian baker, on the other hand, this is a profound assault on conscience.Same-sex marriage supporters don’t see it that way: The baker’s just making an arbitrary value judgment against homosexuality, they’ll insist. (Of course, they won’t use the term homosexuality. They’ll say something like: being free to love whomever one chooses.) That’s why the baker thinks same-sex marriage is a sin. If it weren’t for his bigoted attitude, there wouldn’t be any problem.

            But this is not so. The baker’s view isn’t arbitrary at all. The sinfulness of homosexual acts is a fundamental teaching of the religious body to which he has attached himself, which makes it something more than an individual moral whim (or personal prejudice). And in any event, the baker is perfectly entitled to make such a value judgment, just as he’s perfectly free to attach himself to the religion of his choice. The Constitution guarantees him those freedoms.

            Employing the law to compel his complicity in someone else’s sinful behavior — as he and his church define it — does not advance rights. It advances tyranny. More than that, it becomes what you might call a kind of moral rape. (Now don’t get cute; you know I’m not suggesting there are types of rape that aren’t immoral. I mean a rape of someone’s conscience.)

            Does this sound overblown? I don’t wish to diminish the trauma of sexual assault. Not at all. But there’s a valid analogy here.

            What is physical rape but forcing a woman into a profoundly personal act that’s central to her self-identity, her sense of moral worth, and the commitments she’s chosen to make in her life — and which should only be assented to voluntarily? We judge it as evil when someone compels her submission by force. We call it violating her. Those who advocate compelling our Christian baker to participate in a same-sex wedding cannot see that using the law in this way is equally a violation. What they wish to do is precisely what, in another context, they would claim is the great sin of the Church: imposing beliefs and standards on others.

            Yet this is what the gay lobby is insisting on: forced violation of conscience. And they want it not because they like wedding cake, but because they wish to gain religious validation for relationships which, until very recently, none of the historical religions has ever accepted as legitimate.

            Their means of accomplishing this is to force believers to behave as if they approve of same-sex marriage, or at least don’t care one way or the other. And it is in response to the gay lobby’s heavy-handed efforts in this regard — the lawsuits, the boycotts, the personal slanders, and all the rest — that Indiana has enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

            Despite what is being claimed, RFRA does not give religious believers a license to discriminate against gays or anybody else. There are protections on the books against that. It merely assures people of faith that their consciences and their religious practices will not be burdened by state law unless there is a “compelling state interest” to justify it — and then only to the minimum degree necessary to meet that compelling interest.

            That’s the purpose common to all the versions of RFRA around the country. And this, it seems to me, is the only legitimate way to advance rights. Even the rights of gays, who might someday — when the intellectual atmosphere has turned against them — find themselves in need of their own conscience protections.

          • acontraryview

            There is nothing in your plagiarized reply that points to marriage being destroyed.

          • NGN

            do you have the capability of an original thought?

          • afchief

            Ahhhhh yes, the truth always offends!!! Does it not!!!

          • afchief

            How Does Gay ‘Marriage’ Hurt Us? Here’s How.

            Christians are often asked by gay activists why they oppose same-sex “marriage.” “How does our marriage hurt you?” they ask.

            Well, I can think of one significant way it will hurt us: It will destroy religious freedom and free speech rights.

            The handwriting is on the wall in Canada, which legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2005, in effect completely changing its true meaning. Since then, as Michael Coren notes in National Review Online, “there have been between 200 and 300 proceedings … against critics and opponents of same-sex marriage.” Of course he means legal proceedings.

            For instance, in Saskatchewan, a homosexual man called a state marriage commissioner, wanting to “marry” his partner. The commissioner, an evangelical Christian, declined to conduct the ceremony for religious reasons. He simply referred the man to another commissioner.

            But that was not enough for the gay couple. Even though they got their ceremony, they wanted to punish the Christian who had declined to conduct it. The case ended up in the courts. And the result? Those with religious objections to conducting such ceremonies now face the loss of their jobs.

            Canadian churches are also under attack. Coren writes that when Fred Henry, the Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary, Alberta, sent a letter to churches explaining traditional Catholic teaching on marriage, he was “charged with a human-rights violation” and “threatened with litigation.”

            Churches with theological objections to performing same-sex “wedding” ceremonies are being threatened with the loss of their tax-free status. In British Columbia, the Knights of Columbus agreed to rent its building for a wedding reception before finding out that the couple was lesbian. When they did find out, they apologized to the women and agreed to both find an alternative venue and pay the costs for printing new invitations. But that wasn’t good enough. The women prosecuted, and the Human Rights Commission ordered the Knights of Columbus to pay a fine.

            Of course, the lesbians knew perfectly well what the Catholic Church teaches about marriage, but they sought out a Catholic-owned building, anyway.

            As Michael Coren puts it, “it’s becoming obvious that Christian people, leaders, and organizations are being targeted, almost certainly to create legal precedents”—precedents intended to silence and punish anyone who dares to disagree with so-called gay “marriage.”

            If you think this couldn’t happen here, think again. This year [2012] we’ve seen ObamaCare attack the autonomy of Catholic churches by attempting to force them, in violation of Catholic teaching, to pay for contraceptives and abortifacients for church employees. And just last week, a lesbian employee of a Catholic hospital in New York sued the hospital for denying her partner spousal health benefits.

            This is what we need to tell our neighbors when they ask us, “How does gay ‘marriage’ hurt us?” It means that those hostile to our beliefs will attempt to bend us to their will to force us to not only accept gay “marriage,” but to condone it as well.

            This is why I urge you to join the half-million Christians who have signed the Manhattan Declaration. Please sign it yourself by going to manhattandeclaration. org.

            You and I must demonstrate love to our gay neighbors, of course, remembering that we are ultimately engaged in spiritual warfare. But we should boldly stand up when our rights as citizens and the demands of our conscience are threatened.

          • acontraryview

            There is nothing in your plagiarized reply which indicates how marriage is being destroyed by allowing two citizens of the same gender to enter into marriage. If the goal was to destroy marriage, then why fight for the right to marry?

            The laws in Canada are different than in the US, as are the protections provided by the US constitution.

          • afchief

            LIAR!!!

          • acontraryview

            What lie?

          • NGN

            not an original thought yet chef…you are too funny

          • afchief

            Same-sex “Marriage” and the Persecution of Christians in Canada

            Canada legalized same-sex “marriage” in 2005, the fourth country in the world to do so. During the rushed public debate that preceded legalization, the Christian and traditional understanding of marriage as the union of a man and a woman had strong support. Polls showed a deep split among Canadians, and the majority (52 percent) were actually against legalization at the time that it occurred.

            Opponents of same-sex “marriage” were given all kinds of assurances. The preamble to the Civil Marriage Act states that “everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion,” “nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs,” and “it is not against the public interest to hold and publicly express diverse views on marriage.”

            But how quickly things change. Since the watershed moment of legalization, Canadian social norms have shifted rapidly, and what was once considered fringe or debateable has become the new normal.

            Today, different opinions on “gender identity” and same-sex “marriage” are no longer tolerated. Our society is sweeping away respect for religious faiths that do not accept and celebrate same-sex “marriage,” and the Civil Marriage Act’s assurances seem merely farcical. It is not premature to speak of open discrimination against Christians in Canada.

            Christian Lawyers Need Not Apply

            The Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms declares that Canadians have a fundamental “freedom of conscience and religion” and “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.” But constitutional guarantees are at the mercy of lawyers, and Canadian lawyers have emerged as among the most fiercely intolerant of anyone, including their own colleagues, who fails to support same-sex “marriage.”

            This extreme intolerance became evident last year when Trinity Western University, the largest privately-funded Evangelical Christian university in Canada, set out to establish a law school. TWU’s plans were approved by British Columbia’s Ministry of Education, which seemed like the final green light. But in a truly unprecedented move, the law societies of three provinces, including Ontario, voted to deny accreditation to the law school.

            The law societies gave only one reason, and it had nothing to do with sufficiency of the legal training of TWU graduates. The sole sticking point was the fact that TWU has acampus covenant which, among other things, asks students to abstain from same-sex (and heterosexual) sexual relationships outside of marriage, and states that marriage is reserved for man and woman.

            The benchers who sit on provincial law societies are some of the most powerful lawyers in the country. In debating the TWU covenant, many of these elite lawyers made comparisons between the opposition to same-sex “marriage” and racism. For instance, one Ontario bencher said: “we can draw a useful analogy between public attitudes towards interracial dating and interracial marriage in 1985 and discrimination based on sexual orientation in 2014.” In British Columbia, one bencher put it this way: “there is no way to avoid asking … what this Law Society would do if the community covenant related to interracial marriage, even if that precept was based on religion as it was in the case of the Bob Jones University.“

            The implication could not be more clear: Christians who believe in traditional marriage are the modern-day equivalent of racists, and warrant identical exclusion. Christian lawyers across Canada are now repeating the words of prominent Ontario lawyerAlbertos Polizogopoulos: “I did not attend TWU, but I share its biblical view of marriage…. Do my religious beliefs, particularly about marriage, somehow disqualify me from ably practicing law? That is the inevitable conclusion and consequence if we endorse barring TWU law graduates from practicing law.”

            Not only are Christian lawyers being pushed out by their colleagues, but they are also experiencing ostracism from their clients. As the debate over TWU heated in the media, some of Canada’s most powerful corporations created Legal Leaders for Diversity(LLD), a group that now includes over 70 of Canada’s largest corporations. Through LLD, these companies aim to alter the legal landscape by choosing to do business only with pro-gay law firms. Never before has there been a concerted effort to essentially starve Christian law firms out of business.

            Catholics Seen as Opposed to Human Rights

            The view that Christians are no longer fit for certain jobs is spreading out beyond the legal profession. In March, Toronto’s city council voted to remove the nomination of a Catholic school trustee to the city’s Board of Health. The trustee had not shown any wrongdoing or incompetence, and city councillors didn’t even try to argue this. Their stated concern was that the trustee had a history of voting in line with Catholic teaching.

            In particular, some councillors were concerned that the trustee had consistently opposed gay-straight alliances in schools (a 2012 Ontario law states that these activist gay groups must be permitted inside all publicly-funded schools, including Catholic ones).

            As in the case of TWU, councillors used an analogy to racism. The chair of the Board of Health asked: “Would we allow that as a society if it was black-white alliances? That’s what human rights are about….” Another councillor said: “These are actually human rights issues, the right for gays and lesbians to lead an equal life in the city of Toronto.”

            The writing is on the wall. A mere decade after same-sex “marriage” was legalized in Canada, citizens who do not support same-sex “marriage” are outside the bounds of social acceptability. It is now considered in the public interest to deny them career opportunities and advancement.

            Children as the Next Frontier of Gender Diversity

            This coming September, all publicly funded schools in the province of Ontario, whether Catholic or secular, must begin to teach an aggressive new sexual education curriculumwhich is categorically opposed to Catholic teaching on sexuality and the human person.

            Starting in grade three, the curriculum introduces children to the idea that gender is fluid, and that little boys can decide to be girls, or vice versa. The message is that transgender desires are just as perfectly normal as homosexual leanings.

            This message is already being propagated by our media. For instance, Canadian public radio recently covered the case of a 12-year-old boy who chose to “come out” as a girl one year earlier. This “heartwarming” story includes details such as the fact that the boy’s puberty has now been chemically stopped, and he may be put through female puberty instead.

            Young Canadian children have been “coming out” as transgender, and are being encouraged by officials in schools and government, and by the media. Currently, a Catholic school in Alberta is being pressured to allow a 7-year-old transgender “girl” to use the girls’ bathroom. Last year, the province of Alberta issued a new birth certificate to a 12-year-old “boy” who was born a girl.

            Campaign Life Coalition, Canada’s largest pro-life organization, accurately expressesthe dilemma that Ontario’s Catholic schools are facing:

            It is unclear how Catholic schools can implement teaching on birth control, abortion, the idea that being male or female is a social construct, gender expression, and the 6-gender theory, even if retrofitted with a “Catholic lens.” Catholic moral teaching forbids abortion and the use of artificial contraception as grave evils. The theory of gender identity, gender expression and the idea that there are more genders than just male and female directly contradict Christian anthropology of the human person.

            The Dawn of a New Dictatorship?

            Canada continues to pioneer through a vast social experiment. The legalization of same-sex “marriage” represented the victory in our laws and public morals of a view of the human person and human sexuality that is seriously incompatible with the Gospel. This is turning out to be a zero-sum situation, and Christians are starting to be seen as public enemies.

            Last May at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C., Princeton professor Robert George spoke precisely of these changes in our Western culture, and of the coming persecution of Catholics and other like-minded Christians. Here in Canada, his predictions are already coming to pass:

            The days of socially acceptable Christianity are over. The days of comfortable Catholicism are past…. Powerful forces and currents in our society press us to be ashamed of the Gospel … ashamed of our faith’s teachings on marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife. These forces insist that the Church’s teachings are out of date, retrograde, insensitive, uncompassionate, illiberal, bigoted, even hateful … these same forces say you are a homophobe, a bigot, someone who doesn’t believe in equality. You even represent a threat to people’s safety. You ought to be ashamed!

            …One may in consequence of one’s public witness be discriminated against and denied educational opportunities and the prestigious credentials they may offer; one may lose valuable opportunities for employment and professional advancement; one may be excluded from worldly recognition and honors of various sorts; one’s witness may even cost one treasured friendships…. Yes, there are costs of discipleship—heavy costs.

            Trinity Western University is now fighting expensive court battles in three provinces, and will likely wind up at the Supreme Court. The Toronto Catholic school trustee isconsidering an appeal to a human rights tribunal. Thousands of parents have protested against the new sexual education curriculum in Ontario, pulling 15,000 kids out of school to demonstrate their outrage.

            But Ontario’s premier, who is herself a lesbian in a same-sex “marriage,” has announcedher resolve to introduce the curriculum despite the protests. The tsunami of gender identity politics is only gathering speed, bringing ever more pressure upon those whodare stand in its way.

            May the Canadian experiment serve as your warning to America.

          • acontraryview

            The Canadian Constitution does not provide the same protections as the US Constitution. Citing Canada as an example of what could happen here is false. And, again with the plagiarizing. Tsk tsk.

          • afchief

            LIAR!!!!

          • acontraryview

            What lie did I include in my post? Is it untrue that the Canadian Constitution does not include the same protections regarding speech that the US Constitution does? Is it untrue that the comments of what is happening in Canada are not applicable to the US based upon the protections provided by the US Constitution? Is it untrue that you didn’t plagiarize your post?

            Go ahead. Point out which parts of what I said were a lie.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Maybe you’re not clear on the definition of the word “lie.”

          • NGN

            and yet even more faux persecution

          • NGN

            Mass has had marriage equality for greater than 10 yrs and the sky hasn’t fallen nor has my marriage been affected in the least..

        • NGN

          your marriage may be failing because the gay folks can marry but not mine…….more faux xtian persecution

      • Ambulance Chaser

        What? Who is a “sexual deviant” that doesn’t get to marry?

        • Oboehner

          The guy who was charged with oral on a horse, the guy charged with contact with a donkey, the woman and her dog, the guy who was denied marrying two women, the woman who wanted to marry her father etc. etc.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I don’t know. Why don’t you take up their cases, if you’re so passionate about bestiophile rights?

          • Oboehner

            One born that way and has “rights” all are born that way and have rights.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, then, like I said, of you feel so strongly about the rights of bestiophiles, you should take up the cause.

          • Oboehner

            I feel strongly about hypocrisy, I personally think a man and a woman should marry.

          • acontraryview

            And they can, provided they are both adults, are single, and are not closely related.

          • Oboehner

            Provided…

          • acontraryview

            Yes, provided. Did you have a point?

          • Oboehner

            Sounds like hypocritical discrimination to me, Single? Not closely related?

          • acontraryview

            In what way hypocritical? How is removing restrictions based upon gender, but not removing restrictions based upon number or relation, hypocritical?

          • Oboehner

            Re-read your comment and you tell me, especially the removing restrictions on one group but not for another part, you know like pushing gay marriage, but not letting that guy from Montana marry two adult consenting females.

          • acontraryview

            So you are unable to cite how having restrictions based upon number or relation is hypocritical. Got it. Thanks.

            “but not letting that guy from Montana marry two adult consenting females.”

            The state can provide any number of rational and compelling reasons for not allowing marriage between more than two people. Regarding limiting marriage based upon gender, however, the state was not able to provide any rational and compelling reasons.

            Although some people did think: “We don’t like. We don’t agree with it. It’s against our religious beliefs” were rational and compelling reasons which, of course, is ridiculous.

          • Oboehner

            You are unable to understand simple explanations, got it thanks.
            Why then can sodomites marry, but three consenting adults cannot?

          • acontraryview

            Rights as citizens are not based upon any specific trait being innate. They are based solely upon citizenship.

          • Oboehner

            Then keep any sexual practices out of the mix by not mentioning them.

          • acontraryview

            One of the rights citizens have, within certain boundaries, is sexual practices. Therefore, if those rights are infringed upon by law, it would be impossible to challenge those laws without mentioning sexual practices, wouldn’t it?

          • Oboehner

            So one’s chosen activities are a protected right (unless of course they are not politically correct) forced on the rest?

          • acontraryview

            “So one’s chosen activities are a protected right”

            Within certain boundaries, yes. Were you not aware of that?

            “forced on the rest”

            What activity is being “forced on the rest”?

          • Oboehner

            I, and the bakery owners were not aware that anyone but perverts were protected.

            “What activity is being “forced on the rest”?
            Use your imagination.

      • acontraryview

        Marriage laws are not based upon sexual deviancy. They are based upon age, consent, relationship of the two people, and marital status at the time of application.

        • Oboehner

          Sounds discriminatory to me.

          • acontraryview

            No question about it. Many of our laws are discriminatory. Voting age; drinking age; driving age; etc.,

            Discrimination in our laws, in and of itself, is not the issue. The issue is discrimination for which the state is unable to provide rational and compelling reasons.

          • Oboehner

            Like why two guys can marry each other, but a guy and two women can’t.

          • acontraryview

            The former is legal; the latter is not.

            It would only be discrimination if some men were allowed to marry two women, while others were not. However, since no citizen is allowed to marry more than one person, it is not discrimination.

          • Oboehner

            “The former is legal; the latter is not.” Hypocrisy at its finest.
            It is discrimination when anyone out of the norm marries anyone else and others out of the norm cannot.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Absolutely. This is the heart of the issue.

  • afchief

    The governor does not have to remove her name form issuing homo marriage licences. There is NO federal law that says she has to issue homo licences. NONE!

    A SCOTUS ruling is ONLY an “opinion” and nothing more!!! That is why we have an amendment process. If the legislative branch wants to take this up, they then will have to amend the constitution to make homo marriage legal.

    It is that simple!!!

    • SFBruce

      So, according to you, if Montgomery wants to maintain a segregated public transportation system, they can; and if Virginia and/or other states want to outlaw interracial marriage, they can. I could go on. Like it or not, in our system, the Supreme Court has the last word on what is and isn’t constitutional.

      “But of course the liberals and homosexuals cannot understand simple truths because they are blinded by sin!!!!”

      Surely you know that even among evangelical Christians there’s disagreement about what is and what isn’t “sin.” That means that your argument could be used by anyone against anyone they deem to be engaging in sin.

      • afchief

        Then show me the law. A SCOTUS ruling is only an opinion, period!

        If Americans want America changed, they have agreed, through the Constitution, that the process requires that the changes be done by their elected representatives. If Americans wish to change that process and give up their rights, they can amend the Constitution, as defined in the Constitution.

        Given that the Constitution has not been amended, it’s clear that any Supreme Court decision that changes America is unconstitutional and an exercise in judicial tyranny.

        If the people’s representatives pass a law and the Supreme Court hears a case that simply ensures that the law is followed as intended by the people’s representatives, the Supreme Court’s decision will not, cannot, change America. Rather, it would be the law passed by Congress that is changing America.

        Hence, only by acting in opposition to the Constitution and providing judgments not in keeping with the intent of the people’s representatives can the Supreme Court “change America.”

        The people’s representatives have never passed a law legalizing abortion for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy, nor have they passed a law that legalized gay marriage. If they had, then there would be laws, not Supreme Court rulings, that “changed America” on these issues.

        Similarly, the legalization of pornography – and the resulting exploitation of people as objects to be used rather than as people to be loved – and the transformation of the “justice” system from one that seeks to punish the guilty and free the innocent into one that cares only if minute procedural rules are followed, even if that means the guilty are freed to prey on the innocent, were not accomplished through the will of the people. They were accomplished by rich, mostly white, mostly male Supreme Court judges.

        Irrespective of one’s position on these issues, one has to recognize tyranny. Clearly, if these judges had declared that gay people could be imprisoned for their orientation, those who cheer the death of the American Republic would be singing a different tune. But if history has taught us nothing else, it has taught us that in time, forces not to the liking of modern liberals will hold the reins of the Supreme Court. Hence, transferring power to the judiciary and away from the people will eventually hurt all Americans, no matter their political persuasion.

        • NGN

          sorry chef but SCOTUS ruled that bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional…..nothing more follows

          • afchief

            The blindness of sin i.e. homosexuality is so evident. Why? Because the Word of God is soooooooooooo true!!!!!

            Romans 1:18 (NASB) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

            “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.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9c.asp

            You are the typical homosexual who “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness”

            You cannot stand the truth!!!

            The truth homo marriage is NOT legal!!!!

          • NGN

            says you and you alone. the courts and our society say different. keep your infantile rants coming as they are sweet music to my ears chef!

        • Ambulance Chaser

          “If Americans want America changed, they have agreed, through the Constitution, that the process requires that the changes be done by their elected representatives. If Americans wish to change that process and give up their rights, they can amend the Constitution, as defined in the Constitution.”

          Yes, but if the Constitution already contains a provision under which a right might be found, we turn to judges to clarify that Constitutional provision by ruling on whether or not it does. Once they have ruled, that ruling binds us.

          “Clearly, if these judges had declared that gay people could be imprisoned for their orientation, those who cheer the death of the American Republic would be singing a different tune.”

          I don’t know who “those who cheer the death of the American Republic” are. If you mean “liberals,” just say that. You won’t sound so much like a crazed ideologue.

          Anyway, in the unlikely event such a ludicrous ruling were to happen, then yes, liberals across the country (and the entire western world) would collectively lose their minds over it. We would protest, hold marches, go on talk shows, and light up the entire Internet with outrage. And, once that was all over, we would set about crafting an Amendment to codify gay rights into the Constitution.

          Why would we do that? Because Supreme Court rulings have effect. Would there be that much outrage if they didn’t? Would there be the backlash against Obergefell if they didn’t? Would same sex couples be getting married if they didn’t?

          • afchief

            The Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that established homosexual marriage as national policy is unambiguously wrong on at least three crucial levels: Moral, Constitutional, and Structural.

            On the Moral Level

            The Court’s decision violates the moral standards specifically enumerated in our founding documents. The Declaration of Independence sets forth the fundamental principles and values of American government, and the Constitution provides the specifics of how government will operate within those principles. As the U. S. Supreme Court has correctly acknowledged:

            The latter [Constitution] is but the body and the letter of which the former [Declaration of Independence] is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. [1]

            The Declaration first officially acknowledges a Divine Creator and then declares that America will operate under the general values set forth in “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” The framers of our documents called this the Moral Law, and in the Western World it became known as the Common Law. This was directly incorporated into the American legal system while the colonies were still part of England; [2] following independence, the Common Law was then reincorporated into the legal system of all the new states to ensure its uninterrupted operation; [3] and under the federal Constitution, its continued use was acknowledged by means of the Seventh Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Numerous Founding Fathers and legal authorities, including the U. S. Supreme Court, affirmed that the Constitution is based on the Common Law, [4] which incorporated God’s will as expressed through “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” [5]

            Those constitutional moral standards placed the definition of marriage outside the scope of government. As acknowledged in a 1913 case:

            Marriage was not originated by human law. When God created Eve, she was a wife to Adam; they then and there occupied the status of husband to wife and wife to husband. . . . It would be sacrilegious to apply the designation “a civil contract” to such a marriage. It is that and more – a status ordained by God. [6]

            Because marriage “was not originated by human law,” then civil government had no authority to redefine it. The Supreme Court’s decision on marriage repudiates the fixed moral standards established by our founding documents and specifically incorporated into the Constitution.

            On the Constitutional Level

            The Constitution establishes both federalism and a limited American government by first enumerating only seventeen areas in which the federal government is authorized to operate, [7] and then by explicitly declaring that everything else is to be determined exclusively by the People and the States (the Ninth and Tenth Amendments).

            Thomas Jefferson thus described the overall scope of federal powers by explaining that “the States can best govern our home concerns and the general [federal] government our foreign ones.” [8] He warned that “taking from the States the moral rule of their citizens and subordinating it to the general authority [federal government] . . . . would . . . break up the foundations of the Union.” [9] The issue of marriage is clearly a “domestic” and not a “foreign” issue, and one that directly pertains to the State’s “moral rule of their citizens.” But the Supreme Court rejected these limits on its jurisdiction, and America now experiences what Jefferson feared:

            [W]hen all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another. [10]

            By taking control of issues specifically delegated to the States, the Court has disregarded explicit constitutional limitations and directly attacked constitutional federalism.

            On the Structural Level

            The Constitution stipulates that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government” (Article IV, Section 4). A republican form of government is one in which the people elect leaders to make public policy, with those leaders being directly accountable to the people. More than thirty States, by their republican form of government, had established a definition of marriage for their State. The Supreme Court decision directly abridges the constitutional mandate to secure to every state a republican form of government.

            To believe that the Judiciary is an independent and neutral arbiter without a political agenda is ludicrous. As Thomas Jefferson long ago observed:

            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. [11]

            Judges definitely do have political views and personal agendas; they therefore were given no authority to make public policy. The perils from their doing were too great. As Jefferson affirmed, the judges’ “power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.” [12] He therefore warned:

            [T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal. [13] The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please. [14]

            The Supreme Court’s decision is a direct assault on the republican form of government that the Constitution requires be guaranteed to every State.

            The Road Ahead

            The Supreme Courts decree on marriage will become a club to bludgeon the sincerely-held rights of religious conscience, especially of those in the several dozen States who, through their republican form of government, had enacted public policies that conformed to both the Moral Law and the traditional Common Law.

            While the Supreme Court decision paid lip service to the rights of religious people to disagree with its marriage decision, history shows that not only does this acknowledgment mean little but also that it will be openly disregarded and ignored, particularly at the local level. After all, there are numerous Supreme Court decisions currently on the books – including unanimous Court decisions – protecting the rights of religious expression in public, including for students. Yet such faith expressions continue to be relentlessly attacked by school and city officials at the local and city levels. (See http://www.religioushostility. org for thousands of such recent examples.)

            Even before this decision was handed down, numerous States were already punishing dissenting people of faith, levying heavy fines on them or closing their businesses – not because those individuals attacked gay marriage but rather because they refused to personally participate in its rites. These governmental actions were initiated by complaints of homosexuals filed with civil rights commissions – and all of this was already occurring without a Supreme Court decision on which they could rely. Now that such a decision does exist, expect a tsunami of additional complaints to be filed against Christian business owners, and both the frequency and the intensity of the penalties to be increased.

            Now is the time to display stand-alone courage on the issue of marriage as well as the judicial activism of the Court – now is the time to stand up and be counted, regardless of whether anyone else stands with you. Now is the time for individuals to broadly voice support for traditional marriage (which will likely cause you to be verbally berated or attacked by its opponents) as well as for the rights of religious conscience of dissenters (which will cause you to be charged with defending bigots and haters). Good people can no longer be silent and allow themselves to be intimidated by the mean-spirited attacks that occur when you begin to speak out on this issue.

            It will soon become obvious that this decision opened a Pandora’s Box that will initiate a series of policy changes affecting everything from hiring practices to college athletics, from non-profit tax-exempt status to professional licensing standards. So the battle is not over; it is literally just beginning. We have a duty to let our voice be heard.

            Strikingly, duty was the character trait of Jesus. He loved us because it was the right thing to do; He went to the cross because it was the right thing to do; He forgave us because it was the right thing to do. It was His duty. Our Founders repeatedly praised that character trait, and noted the numerous spiritual blessings that came from its performance:

            The man who is conscientiously doing his duty will ever be protected by that Righteous and All-Powerful Being, and when he has finished his work, he will receive an ample reward. [15] Samuel Adams, signer of the declaration

            All that the best men can do is to persevere in doing their duty . . . and leave the consequences to Him who made it their duty, being neither elated by success (however great) nor discouraged by disappointment (however frequent and mortifying). [16] John Jay, original chief justice of the u. s. supreme court, author of the federalist papers

            The sum of the whole is that the blessing of God is only to be looked for by those who are not wanting in the discharge of their own duty. [17] John Witherspoon, Signer of the Declaration

            People of faith need to regain the concept of duty, and we would do well to adopt the motto that characterized the efforts of Founding Father John Quincy Adams: “Duty is ours, results are God’s.” [18] Now is the time for people of faith to be silent no more.

            [1] Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Railway Company v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 160 (1897).

            [2] Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham: John Byrne, 1795), Vol. I, pp. 1-2, “Of Law and Government;” Henry Campbell Black, A Law Dictionary Containing Definition of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient and Modern (St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1910), pp. 226-227, s.v. “common law;” John Bouvier, Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America, and of the Several States of the American Union (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1892), Vol. I, pp. 348-349; Alexander M. Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary (New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co., 1867), Vol. I, pp. 324-326.

            [3] Zephaniah Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham: John Byrne, 1795), Vol. I, pp. 1-2, “Of Law and Government;” Henry Campbell Black, A Law Dictionary Containing Definition of the Terms and Phrases of American and English Jurisprudence, Ancient and Modern (St. Paul: West Publishing Co., 1910), pp. 227-227, s.v. “common law;” John Bouvier, Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America, and of the Several States of the American Union (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1892), Vol. I, pp. 348-349; Alexander M. Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary (New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co., 1867), Vol. I, pp. 324-326.

            [4] See, for example, U.S. v. Coolidge, 1 Gall. 488 (1813); U.S. v. Wonson, 1 Gall. 5 (1812); Robinson v. Campbell, 16 U.S. 3 Wheat. 212 (1818); Alexander M. Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary (New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co., 1871), Vol. I, pp. 324-326; Thomas M. Cooley, A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations which Rest Upon the Legislative Power of the States of the American Union (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1871), pp. 21-25, “The Formation and Amendment of State Constitutions”; Theron Metcalf & Jonathan Perkins, Digest of the Decisions of the Courts of Common Law and Admiralty in the United States (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1860), Vol. I, p. 532, s.v. “common law”; John Bouvier, Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America, and of the Several States of the American Union (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1892), Vol. I, pp. 348-349; etc.

            [5] See, for example, Alexander M. Burrill, A Law Dictionary and Glossary (New York: Baker, Voorhis & Co., 1867), Vol. I, p. 325; A. J. Dallas, Reports of Cases Ruled and Adjudged in the Several Courts of the United States and of Pennsylvania Held at the Seat of the Federal Government (Philadelphia: J. Ormrod, 1799), Vol. III, p. 139, Talbot, Appellant, versus Janson, Appellee, et al. which says: “But the abstract right of individuals to withdraw from the society of which they are members, is recognized by an uncommon coincidence of opinion – by every writer, ancient and modern; by the civilian, as well as by the common-law layer; by the philosopher, as well as the poet: It is the law of nature, and of nature’s god, pointing to ‘the wide world before us, where to chuse our place of rest, and providence our guide’;” Giles Jacob, A New Law Dictionary (New York: Frederick C. Brightly, 1905), s.v. “Common Law” which says: “The common law is grounded upon the general customs of the realm; and includes in it the Law of Nature, the Law of God, and the Principles and Maxims of the Law: It is founded upon Reasons; and is said to be perfection of reason, acquired by long study, observation and experience, and refined by learned men in all ages”; Giles Jacob & T. E. Tomlins, The Law-Dictionary: Explaining the Rise, Progress, and Present State of the English Law (Philadelphia: Fry and Kammerer, 1811), Vol. IV, p. 89, s.v. “law” which says: “The law of nature is that which God at mans’ creation infused into him, for his preservation and direction; and this is lex eterna and may not be changed: and no laws shall be made or kept, that are expressly against the Law of god, written in his Scripture; as to forbid what he commandeth, & c. 2 Shep. Abr. 356”; William Nicholson, American Edition of the British Encyclopedia or Dictionary of Arts and Sciences (Philadelphia: Mitchell, Ames, and White, 1821), Vol. VII, s.v. “Law” which says “But this large division may be reduced to the common division; and all is founded on the law of nature and reason, and the revealed law of God, as all other laws ought to be”; Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston: Hillard, Gray, and Company, 1833), Vol. III, p. 724, § 1867; Testimony of Distinguished Laymen to the Value of the Sacred Scriptures (New York: American Bible Society, 1854), pp. 51-53, Justice John McLean, November 4, 1852. See also Samuel W. Bailey, Homage of Eminent Persons to the Book (New York, 1869), p. 54, Joseph Hornblower, chief justice of New Jersey; Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394, 399 (Sup. Ct. Pa. 1824); Richmond v. Moore, 107 Ill. 429, 1883 WL 10319 (Ill.), 47 Am.Rep. 445 (Ill. 1883); State v. Mockus, 14 ALR 871, 874 (Maine Sup. Jud. Ct., 1921); Cason v. Baskin, 20 So.2d 243, 247 (Fla. 1944) (en banc); Stollenwerck v. State, 77 So. 52, 54 (Ala. Ct. App. 1917) (Brown, P. J. concurring); Gillooley v. Vaughn, 110 So. 653, 655 (Fla. 1926), citing Theisen v. McDavid, 16 So. 321, 323 (Fla. 1894); Rogers v. State, 4 S.E.2d 918, 919 (Ga. Ct. App. 1939); Brimhall v. Van Campen, 8 Minn. 1 (1858); City of Ames v. Gerbracht, 189 N.W. 729, 733 (Iowa 1922); Ruiz v. Clancy, 157 So. 737, 738 (La. Ct. App. 1934), citing Caldwell v. Henmen, 5 Rob. 20; Beaty v. McGoldrick, 121 N.Y.S.2d 431, 432 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1953); Ex parte Mei, 192 A. 80, 82 (N.J. 1937); State v. Donaldson, 99 P. 447, 449 (Utah 1909); De Rinzie v. People, 138 P. 1009, 1010 (Colo. 1913); Addison v. State, 116 So. 629 (Fla. 1928); State v. Gould, 46 S.W.2d 886, 889-890 (Mo. 1932); Doll v. Bender, 47 S.E. 293, 300 (W.Va. 1904) (Dent, J. concurring); and many others. See, also, Joseph Story, A Discourse Pronounced upon the Inauguration of the Author, as Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University, on the Twenty-Fifth Day of August, 1829 (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, Little, and Wilkins, 1829), pp. 20-21; John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. III, p. 439, “On Private Revenge,” originally published in the Boston Gazette, September 5, 1763; James Wilson, The Works of the Honourable James Wilson, Bird Wilson, editor (Philadelphia: Lorenzo Press, 1804), Vol. I, p. 104, “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”; Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 470-471 (1892); Shover v. State, 10 Ark. 259, 263 (1850); People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns 225 (1811); Reports of the Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1821, assembled for the purpose of amending the Constitution of the State of New York, Nathaniel H. Carter and William L. Stone, reporters (Albany: E. and E. Hosford, 1821), p. 576, October 31, 1821; Charles B. Galloway, Christianity and the American Commonwealth (Nashville: Publishing House Methodist Episcopal Church, 1898), pp. 170-171; Lindenmuller v. The People, 33 Barb 548, 560-564, 567 (Sup. Ct. NY 1861); Strauss v. Strauss, 148 Fla. 23, 3 So.2d 727 (Sup.Ct.Fla. 1941); and many others.

            [6] Grigsby v. Reib, 153 S.W. 1124, 1129-30 (Tex.Sup.Ct. 1913).

            [7] Article I, Section 1 lists fifteen powers permissible to the federal government; two additional federal powers are added through constitutional amendments, thus bringing the total number of constitutionally-authorized federal jurisdictions to seventeen.

            [8] Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, p. 374, to Judge William Johnson on June 12, 1823.

            [9] Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Gray and Bowen, 1830), Vol. IV, p. 374, to Judge William Johnson on June 12, 1823.

            [10] Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, p. 332, to Charles Hammond on August 18, 1821.

            [11] Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, p. 277, to William Charles Jarvis on September 28, 1820.

            [12] Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, p. 277, to William Charles Jarvis on September 28, 1820.

            [13] Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, p. 277, to William Charles Jarvis on September 28, 1820.

            [14] Thomas Jefferson, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XV, p. 215, to Judge Spencer Roane on September 6, 1819.

            [15] Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo Cushing, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1907), Vol. III, to Mrs. Adams on January 29, 1777.

            [16] John Jay, The Life of John Jay: With Selections from His Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers, William Jay, editor (New York: J & J Harper, 1833), Vol. II, p. 174, to the Reverend Richard Price on September 27, 1785.

            [17] John Witherspoon, Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men. A Sermon Preached at Princeton on the 17th of May, 1776. Being the General Fast Appointed by the Congress Through the United Colonies (Philadelphia: 1777), p. 32.

            [18] Elbridge S. Brooks, Historic Americans: Sketches of the Lives and Characters of Certain Famous Americans (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell & Company, 1899), p. 209.

        • NGN

          one trick pony

      • Shaun D.

        God’s Holy and Eternal word is without error and does not change.

        God hates all homosexuality.

        It was SIN before the world began and it will never cease to be sin (“abomination”).

        Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:24-32

    • acontraryview

      “there is NO federal law that says she has to issue homo licences. NONE!”

      There is NO federal law that says she has to issue marriage licenses to heterosexuals. So how is the lack of a federal law relevant?

      “A SCOTUS ruling is ONLY an “opinion” and nothing more!!!”

      No, Russ, it is not “ONLY an opinion” – it is a ruling.

      “If the legislative branch wants to take this up, they then will have to amend the constitution to make homo marriage legal.”

      No, they do not. They do not have to take any action at all. In striking down laws which restricted the right of citizens, based upon gender, to marry, the ability of two citizens of the same gender to enter into civil marriage becomes legal. No Constitutional Amendment is necessary. Just as none was necessary when laws restricting marriage to two citizens of the same race where ruled unconstitutional.

      • afchief

        BYE!!! I’m done dealing with a reprobate mind!!! It is quite obvious you have one!!! There is NO truth in you!!!

        • acontraryview

          Please cite what I said above that is not true.

          • afchief

            You are a liar and there is NO truth in you!!! You want to and have to believe that the SCOTUS ruling is law. You can’t stand that it is not. Yes, you are quite the liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            “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.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9c.asp

          • acontraryview

            “You want to and have to believe that the SCOTUS ruling is law.”

            No I do not. A SCOTUS ruling is not law. It is a ruling on the constitutionality, and thus enforceability, of laws.

            I’ll ask again: Please cite what I said above that is a lie.

          • afchief

            I just showed you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Bye liar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • acontraryview

            No, you didn’t.

            Merry Christmas.

          • Aulcie Smith

            acontraryview, don’t waste your time with people who act like a five year old child when confronted with the truth and factual information. They need to read the Supreme Court ruling in Cooper V Aaron (1958) which held that the states are bound by the Court’s decisions and must enforce them even if the states disagreed with them.The states can pass any law, as long as that law doesn’t violate federal Constitutional law. I need to thank all the neo-conservatives for passing state constitutional laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples only. That set the stage so the laws banning marriage equality could be challenged in federal court because that narrow definition of marriage violated gay and lesbian couples First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. If they left the laws alone it might have taken years for a state-by-state victory. Their own strategy came around and bit them on the backside.

          • afchief

            Ahhhhh another liar!!!! If “judges” ruled that sodomy was illegal in 1986, how did sodomy become “legal” today? Did the law change, or did the “opinions” of the “judges” change?

            With your lie YOU ARE CONTRADICTING YOURSELF!!! LOL!!!!

            Opinions can change when judges change. The law cannot be changed by a “judge.” If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are.

            Show me where it states what you just posted in Article III of the Constitution

            Waiting………………………………

          • Aulcie Smith

            Lawrence vs. Texas (2003) struck down ALL anti-sodomy laws between consenting adults NATIONWIDE.

          • afchief

            Really? You said once the SCOTUS rules the states are bound to those rulings. So if sodomy was illegal in 1986 why and how did it change? Does Lawrence vs. Texas have jurisdiction over the SCOTUS? Are you telling me it does?

            Let me help educate you. The SCOTUS rulings are “opinions” and change nothing!!!! The SCOTUS needs Congress and the President to back them (by amending the Constitution) before a law is struck down, made or changed!!

            That is how our government works!!!!

          • Aulcie Smith

            Taking my own advice to acontraryview.

          • afchief

            Poor liberals and homos!!! The truth always offends!!! Does it not?

          • Aulcie Smith

            Very last reply to a spoiled child: UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULING IN LAWRENCE VS TEXAS in 2003 is the case that struck down ALL anti-sodomy laws NATION WIDE.

          • afchief

            Ahhh yes, the truth always offends!!! Here educate yourself!!!!

            “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.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9c.asp

            More education for you!!!

            The Supreme Court versus Congress

            Even though the Constitution gave the lawmaking powers to the Congress, courts have become the predominant policy making body in the nation. In fact, on public tours of the Supreme Court, one often hears the ridiculous claim that “this is the building from which all the laws in the land emanate.” The Supreme Court, fully believing its own propaganda, regularly strikes down or rewrites the laws of Congress to conform to its own predilections and edicts.

            For example, in 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to correct an earlier Supreme Court decision that weakened a long-standing First Amendment protection for religious groups. That Congressional act reinstituted protection declaring that a government entity must not interfere with a religious body unless it had “a compelling state interest” for doing so. When a Catholic church in Boerne, Texas, sought to accommodate its burgeoning membership but was denied a building permit to expand its facilities, the church invoked relief under RFRA, claiming the city had no “compelling state interest” in denying the church expansion. The Court ruled otherwise, striking down Congress’ attempt to protect religious bodies from government intrusion. While most decried this decision for weakening the rights of religious bodies, there was a far greater question at stake.

            Congress invoked Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution in passing RFRA to protect religious freedoms from further governmental encroachment. Yet even though the Congress had acted on the power explicitly given it in the Constitution, the Court struck down the law, refusing to be corrected by Congress and warning that Congress should not attempt to correct a Court ruling. Significantly, Congress cited the Constitution as its authority for passing RFRA, but the Court did not cite the Constitution as its authority for striking RFRA down. The Court instead pointed to its own previous decisions, thus elevating its rulings higher than the Constitution itself. As it explained, “Any suggestion that Congress has a substantive, non-remedial power under the Fourteenth Amendment is not supported by our case law.” The Court then rebuked Congress, warning that its judicial edicts must be treated “with the respect due them.” In short, we the Court demand that you the Congress adhere to our opinions regardless of what the Constitution says.

            Obviously, the Supreme Court considers both itself and its decisions supreme over Congress. However, the Constitution disagrees – it deliberately empowers Congress with greater power. For example, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to set the salaries for judges, determine the size of the Judiciary, establish the scope of the Judiciary’s jurisdiction and the types of cases which come before it. Furthermore, judges cannot serve without the approval of Congress, and Congress may remove judges with whom it is dissatisfied. These are just some of the “constitutional arms” for Congress’ “powers of self-defense” (Federalist 73, Alexander Hamilton).

            The Constitution clearly places many of the operations of the Judiciary under the oversight of Congress – a power not granted reciprocally to the Judiciary. This is made clear in the Federalist Papers (described by James Madison as “the most authentic exposition of the heart of the federal Constitution”), which confirm that subjugating the Judiciary to Congress was deliberate and intentional. Federalist #51 declares:

            The legislative authority necessarily predominates.

            Federalist #78 then proclaims:

            The Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.

            Furthermore, Federalist #49 declares that Congress – not the Court – is “the confidential guardians of [the people’s] rights and liberties.” Why? Because the Legislature – not the unelected judiciary – is closest to the people and most responsive to them. In fact, the Court’s own history proves that it is not a proficient guardian of the people’s rights. For example, after the Civil War, Congress passed civil rights laws forbidding segregation, but the Court struck down these laws and instead instituted “separate but equal” in Plessey v. Ferguson. (While the Court eventually ended this racial segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, that decision was merely the Court’s reversal of its own segregation standard previously established in Plessey.)

            Moreover, had it been up to the Court, slavery would have never ended: in 1857, the Court declared it unconstitutional for the other branches to end slavery or to free slaves. Fortunately, Congress ignored that decision by declaring freedom for slaves in 1862 and President Lincoln also ignored that decision by issuing the “Emancipation Proclamation” in 1863. All substantive progress in civil rights after the Civil War was accomplished only after Congress used Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to remove Reconstruction issues from the Court’s reach. Indeed, history demonstrates that the Court is less than a faithful guardian of the people’s rights, violating the people’s liberties as often as it protects them. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out:

            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. . . . and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

            Today, the Court claims that it is the only body capable of interpreting the Constitution – that Congress is incapable of determining constitutionality. However, the Founding Fathers vehemently disagreed. For example, James Madison declared:

            [T]he meaning of the Constitution may as well be ascertained by the Legislative as by the Judicial authority.

            Constitutional Convention delegate Luther Martin similarly attested:

            A knowledge of mankind and of legislative affairs cannot be presumed to belong in a higher degree to the Judges than to the Legislature.

            The Founders consistently opposed the Court being the final word on constitutionality. For example, Thomas Jefferson declared:

            [T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.

            He further explained that if the Court was left unchecked:

            The Constitution . . . [would be] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

            Allowing the Court to enlarge its own sphere of power beyond what the Constitution authorizes, permitting the Court to usurp the powers of Congress, and tolerating the Courts’ disregard of constitutional separation of powers moves America ever further from being a representative republic and ever closer toward the oligarchy against which Jefferson warned. The Court must be resisted in these attempts.

            Impeachment: The Founders’ Solution

            As noted earlier, judges in previous generations who usurped powers from Congress or the people faced impeachment. But today’s critics claim that the use of impeachment would either make the judiciary a “political” branch (as if it were not already a political branch) or that it would violate the “independence of the judiciary.” Yet, as Thomas Jefferson so accurately cautioned,

            It should be remembered as an axiom of eternal truth in politics that whatever power . . . is independent is absolute also. . . . Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass.

            No judge should ever be so independent that he is unaccountable to the Congress, and thereby the people. As Justice James Iredell (placed on the Court by President George Washington) so clearly explained:

            Every government requires it [impeachment]. Every man ought to be amenable for his conduct.

            Iredell further noted that some officials will behave themselves only under “the very terror of punishment” that impeachment provides. Recent events suggest he was right.

            In 1996, six members of the Supreme Court voted to overturn the Colorado election forbidding special (rather than just equal) rights for homosexuals. Following that flagrant display of contempt for the will of Colorado voters, there was a national call for the impeachment of those six Justices. After this clamor for their removal, those same six Justices suddenly became ardent defenders of the people’s elections and in a subsequent decision unexpectedly and unanimously chastised a lower court that had overturned a statewide election in Arizona. (Interestingly, Thomas Jefferson on multiple occasions called impeachment a “scarecrow” – something used to frighten predators – and the threat of impeachment certainly had that effect on the Supreme Court.)

            Similarly, after a federal judge overturned a binding referendum by the voters of California (“Proposition 209”), national leaders called for the impeachment of that judge. Later, the 9th Circuit ordered the results of the election reinstated and criticized that judge for ignoring the will of the people. Yet, this same 9th Circuit Court had itself shortly before overturned at least three similar elections. Why the flip-flop? The “scarecrow” had been forcefully raised by Congress to make judges accountable for their decisions by returning to the original constitutional uses of impeachment.

            It is true that impeachment is a cumbersome process, and achieving a conviction is difficult. However, on most occasions, just the threat of impeachment produces results. In fact, there are several examples of federal judges correcting their own decisions after hearing Congressional calls for their impeachment; and an actual impeachment sends an even more powerful message to all other wayward leaning judges.

            Although Congress is ultimately responsible for the discipline of judges, far too many of our Congressmen (like far too many of our citizens) have no understanding of the proper use of impeachment. However, a wise political axiom declares that “Congress sees the light when it feels the heat,” and this is especially true on this issue. As citizens, we need to educate ourselves on the proper use of judicial impeachment, and then we need to educate our Representatives, reminding them of the need for judicial reform and alerting them to those judges showing a pattern of abuse. The time for encouraging judicial accountability is once again ripe. This is a golden opportunity for citizens to weigh in and make a difference.

          • acontraryview

            What “truth” are you referring to?

          • NGN

            no its not chef boy ar dee. scotus rulings are legally binding. that’s why gays can LEGALLY marry in all 50 states.

          • acontraryview

            “You said once the SCOTUS rules the states are bound to those rulings. So if sodomy was illegal in 1986 why and how did it change? ”

            That is true. What changed the 1986 ruling was another legal challenge to that law and a subsequent ruling.

            “The SCOTUS rulings are “opinions” and change nothing!!!!”

            That is false. If the SOCTUS rules that a law violates protections provided by the US Constitution, then the law is no longer enforceable. The enforceability of the law has changed.

            “The SCOTUS needs Congress and the President to back them (by amending the Constitution) before a law is struck down, made or changed!!”

            That is false. Striking down a law does not require any action by Congress or the President. The law simply becomes unenforceable. Making or changing laws can be done by any body with legislative powers. It is not limited to Congress or the President.

            “That is how our government works!!!!”

            No, it is not.

          • afchief

            When you have a reprobate mind…you lie…it’s what you do!!!

            I can save you 15% on Gieco insurance…..it’s what they do!

          • acontraryview

            “When you have a reprobate mind…you lie…it’s what you do!!!”

            Yet you have been unable to cite anything that I have said that was a lie. Apparently you have a reprobate mind as you continue to bear false witness.

            “I can save you 15% on Gieco insurance…..it’s what they do!”

            Are you a Geico agent?

          • afchief

            Do you know what this means?

            2 Corinthians 4:4 (NASB) in whose case the god (satan) of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving

            It means that there is NO truth in you. It means you are blinded by sin. It means you are a liar. It means (whether you know it or not) you have to serve somebody. And right now you are serving the father of lies!!!

            There are only 2 choices.

            Everything you post is a lie!!!

          • Trivia Jockey

            I see you are still completely wrong about how Supreme Court rulings work. SCOTUS rulings have THE FORCE OF LAW. If SCOTUS declares a law unconstitutional, that law is NULL AND VOID. Immediately. The law cannot be enforced. It doesn’t need enabling legislation from Congress. For example, once SCOTUS declared anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional, no state could enforce such a law.

            This is basic, basic constitutional law. Please let us know what law school you attended…

          • afchief

            Then show me the law in the Constitution!! Because what you just said is a BOLDFACE LIE!!!!!

            “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.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9c.asp

          • Trivia Jockey

            That refers to enforcement only. Obviously the judges can’t personally go out and make sure the law is being followed. But their decisions are law.

            Let’s try a real-world example. In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), the Court declared that “separate but equal” laws for public schools were unconstitutional. Do you honestly think schools were still allowed to be whites-only after that decision because that decision was merely “an opinion”? Of course not. Schools were immediately ordered desegregated. That was in 1954…they didn’t have to wait for Congress to pass the Civil Rights legislation in 1964.

          • afchief

            Their decisions are NOT law. You cannot legislate from the bench. I am surprised of the ignorance of the left on how our government works. The legislative and executive branch have to agree before a law is made, changed, or removed, period!!! Opinions can change when judges change. The law cannot be changed by a “judge.” If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are.

            If “judges” ruled that sodomy was illegal in 1986, how did sodomy become “legal” today? Did the law change, or did the “opinions” of the “judges” change?

            President Andrew Jackson, in a shot across the bow regarding a Supreme Court ruling in 1832 famously said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” President Jackson ignored the decision that the Supreme Court handed down.

            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.”

          • Trivia Jockey

            >>So if sodomy was illegal in 1986 why and how did it change?

            Texas had a law making sodomy illegal as of 2003. The Supreme Court said that law was unconstitutional. That law became void. What about that do you not understand?

          • afchief

            Poor homo who does not understand law!!! A SCOTUS ruling is ONLY an opinion!!! It changes NOTHING!!!

            Texas Constitution
            Article 1
            Sec. 32. MARRIAGE. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.

          • Trivia Jockey

            The law you just quoted is no longer valid. It’s void because it’s been declared unconstitutional in Obergfell. Texas can’t enforce it.

          • afchief

            Nope! That is a lie!!! Here is Article III of our Constitution. Show me where it states that the SCOTUS can strike down laws.

            Waiting…………………………………………………

            Article III.

            Section. 1.

            The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

            Section. 2.

            The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

            In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

            The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

            Section. 3.

            Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

            The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

          • afchief

            Article. I.
            Section. 1.
            All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,

            Do you know what “all” means?

          • Trivia Jockey

            So let me ask you this question…if SCOTUS rulings are only “opinions” and don’t change the law in any way, how was Kim Davis arrested for refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples? If the Court’s opinion didn’t change anything, and Kentucky law prohibits gay marriage, how was Kim Davis violating the law?

          • afchief

            She wasn’t violating ANY law. She was illegally detained and should sue the pants off the state.

            KNOW HOW YOU GOVERNMENT WORKS!!!!!!

            Congress makes laws. Courts render opinions. Opinions are……opinions. Judges give their opinions of what they think the law says.

            For instance, the recent 0bamaNOcare “decision” from the Supreme Court was supported by five justices, while four justices had a dissenting “opinion.” How can an opinion be enforceable? Especially an “opinion” so equally divided and strongly opposed?

            Let me help you…..IT CAN’T!!!!

            In Alabama, 81% of the people voted that marriage is between one man and one woman. How can the “opinion” of five terrorists in black robes in Washington carry more weight than the “opinion” of millions of Alabama voters?

            Let me help you…..IT CAN’T!!!

          • acontraryview

            “Opinions can change when judges change.”

            True. Did you have a point?

            “The law cannot be changed by a “judge.””

            True. The ability to enforce a law, however, CAN be changed by judicial ruling.

            “If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are.”

            They do.

          • acontraryview

            I agree. They did, unbeknownst to them at the time, indeed bring this result to a much quicker conclusion than most likely would have been the case. The desire to legalize unequal treatment under the law seldom plays out well under our Constitution.

          • NGN

            he can’t. he’s just a one trick pony….

          • NGN

            Funny that its now legal throughout the USA

          • NGN

            but it is law…..

          • afchief

            Ohhhhhhh show me the law, yes show me the law, showww me the law todayyyyy!!!

            What? Congress has not amended the Constitution???? Ohhhhh there is no law, yes there is nooooo law. There is no law for homos to marry todayyyy.

            Poor homos, I KNOW THE LAW!!!!!!

        • NGN

          leaving for good? Awesome…..bye chef!

        • NGN

          because you have no argument

    • NGN

      you keep parroting this but you have no idea what you’re saying. YOU are another reason why your side keeps losing battle after battle..too funny.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      It is quite simple, just not in the way you think. SCOTUS ruled that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. Now they are. Period. End of story.

      If you want to prove me wrong, cite something. As in, a legal authority that states that SCOTUS rulings have no force and effect. And no, stomping your foot, shouting, calling me names, using multiple exclamation points, or simply insisting that it is so again does NOT count.

      • afchief

        How about the Constitution!!! Can you show me where in Article III is says the SCOTUS can strike down laws?

        Waiting……………………………………………..

        Congress

        Article. I.
        To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever

        To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

        The SCOTUS

        Article III.

        Section. 1.

        The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

        Section. 2.

        The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

        In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

        The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

        Section. 3.

        Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

        The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

        • NGN

          nice cut n paste plagiarism chef. SCOTUS ruled the bans on gay marriage unconstitutional. THus striking them down. Unenforceable.Thus making gay marriage legal.

          • afchief

            Now everyone sing after me……ohhhhhhhhh show me the law, yes show me the law, ohhh show me the law todayyyyyy,

            What? Congress did not amend the Constitution? Now everyone sing after me……….ohhhhh there is no law, yes there is no law, ohh there is no law for homos to marry todayyyyyy, yes there is nooo law!!!!

          • NGN

            funny thing is that gays can legally marry and reap all of the benefits associated with marriage………..do you need a hug now chef?

          • acontraryview

            There is no law that prevents them from marrying. Therefore, they are allowed to marry provided they meet the legal requirements for doing so: two, consenting, non-closely related, adults.

          • afchief

            We Christians call it spiritual darkness/blindness i.e. lying because you cannot stand to hear the truth. Shrinks call it; cognitive dissonance

            “The psychological processes which prevent people from facing facts when the unthinkable has become obvious can be explained by the models of social psychology called cognitive dissonance theory.

            Cognitive dissonance is the mental stress and discomfort caused when important beliefs, attitudes or values, called cognitions, are inconsistent, conflicting or contradictory to each other.”

            Liberals and homos exhibit this all the time!!!! LOL!!!

          • acontraryview

            You are a case study in cognitive dissonance.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I swear to God, it’s like trying to talk sense to a broken record.

      • afchief

        Let me help you with definitions since your law degrees isn’t worth the paper it is printed on!!!!!

        Congress

        Article. I.

        To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever

        Exclusive = an exclusive right or privilege. Let me translate!!! No other branch has any right or privilege to legislation!!! Which means striking down laws!!! Now let me help you with the noun “legislation”

        Legislation = the act of making or enacting laws. Which means only the federal, state and local legislative branches can make, change and remove laws. Now let me help you with the word “all”.

        All = (adjective) every, (pronoun) everything, (noun) the entire. Let me translate for you….. All means all laws. Every single one of them. ‘In all cases’ it is up to Congress to make, change or remove laws. ALL CASES!!!!!

        Does that register in the liberal cranium? Or is it too hard?

        I think I know the answer!!!!

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Let me present you every other time in history where a court has ruled on something and every institution within its jurisdiction has fallen in line.

          • afchief

            Ohhhhhh show me the law, yes show me the law, Ohhhh show me the law todayyyy.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Why do you keep saying that? It’s not like anybody will argue with you that there’s no statute or constitutional amendment that specifically mentions gay marriage. We KNOW there isn’t. We aren’tgoing to dispute that with you.

            It was a right established through case law. Every single person in the American government and legal system understands that case law is binding. Are you really so arrogant as to presume that your understanding of the law is superior to literally every lawyer, bureaucrat, judge, staffer, and elected official in the United States?

          • afchief

            You say you are a lawyer? If so, you know you have to provide evidence to convict or to win an argument! And it has to be beyond reasonable doubt.

            Show me WHERE is says case law is binding in our Constitution? Show me where the SCOTUS rulings are nothing more the “opinions”. Show me where the SCOTUS can “strike down laws”.

            Show me!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Fine, I’ll show you (again, because you apparently missed it the first time.)

            Here are 3 articles on the subject.

            https://www.law.georgetown. edu/academics/academic-programs/legal-writing-scholarship/writing-center/upload/WHICH_COURT_IS_BINDING_Painter-and-Mayer-FINAL.pdf

            http://faculty.law.lsu. edu/toddbruno/mandatory_v__persuasive.htm

            http://www.uscis .gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/About%20Us/Directorates%20and%20Program%20Offices/RAIO/Case%20Law%20LP%20(RAIO).pdf

          • afchief

            From http://faculty.law.lsu. edu/toddbruno/mandatory_v__persuasive.htm

            Federal Courts

            United States Supreme Court–The decisions of the United States Supreme Court are mandatory authority in all courts, federal and state, when the decisions cover points of federal law.

            Does NOT give authority to strike down laws. No where does it say otherwise!!!

            Just read https://www.law.georgetown. edu/academics/academic-programs/legal-writing-scholarship/writing-center/upload/WHICH_COURT_IS_BINDING_Painter-and-Mayer-FINAL.pdf

            NOTHING in there about Federal courts “striking down laws”.

            I can’t even get on this website http://www.uscis .gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/About%20Us/Directorates%20and%20Program%20

            AGAIN, there is NOTHING in there about courts striking down laws. NOTHING!!!

            Here, educate yourself again.

            “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.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9c.asp

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Here’s another one, from the Christian Legal Society.

            http://www.clsnet. org/document.doc?id=130

            You’ll note on page 10, it says “Federal laws include court decisions…” Later it says, “The Supreme Court’s decisions are law throughout the country.”

          • afchief

            This website is an anti-christian/freedom from religion website. Enough said!!!!!

            From the website:

            “The Supreme Court’s decisions are law throughout the country”

            Can you show me where it says that in the Constitution?

            If true, why do most states still have abortion illegal?

            Why do states still have in their constitutions that marriage is between one man and one woman?

            Now I see what websites you are going to. LIBERAL/ANT-CHRISTIAN!!!

            ENOUGH SAID!!!

          • afchief

            Some more education for you!!!!

            “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.”

            http://www.ushistory. org/gov/9c.asp

            Some more education for you!!!!

            The Supreme Court versus Congress

            Even though the Constitution gave the lawmaking powers to the Congress, courts have become the predominant policy making body in the nation. In fact, on public tours of the Supreme Court, one often hears the ridiculous claim that “this is the building from which all the laws in the land emanate.” The Supreme Court, fully believing its own propaganda, regularly strikes down or rewrites the laws of Congress to conform to its own predilections and edicts.

            For example, in 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to correct an earlier Supreme Court decision that weakened a long-standing First Amendment protection for religious groups. That Congressional act reinstituted protection declaring that a government entity must not interfere with a religious body unless it had “a compelling state interest” for doing so. When a Catholic church in Boerne, Texas, sought to accommodate its burgeoning membership but was denied a building permit to expand its facilities, the church invoked relief under RFRA, claiming the city had no “compelling state interest” in denying the church expansion. The Court ruled otherwise, striking down Congress’ attempt to protect religious bodies from government intrusion. While most decried this decision for weakening the rights of religious bodies, there was a far greater question at stake.

            Congress invoked Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution in passing RFRA to protect religious freedoms from further governmental encroachment. Yet even though the Congress had acted on the power explicitly given it in the Constitution, the Court struck down the law, refusing to be corrected by Congress and warning that Congress should not attempt to correct a Court ruling. Significantly, Congress cited the Constitution as its authority for passing RFRA, but the Court did not cite the Constitution as its authority for striking RFRA down. The Court instead pointed to its own previous decisions, thus elevating its rulings higher than the Constitution itself. As it explained, “Any suggestion that Congress has a substantive, non-remedial power under the Fourteenth Amendment is not supported by our case law.” The Court then rebuked Congress, warning that its judicial edicts must be treated “with the respect due them.” In short, we the Court demand that you the Congress adhere to our opinions regardless of what the Constitution says.

            Obviously, the Supreme Court considers both itself and its decisions supreme over Congress. However, the Constitution disagrees – it deliberately empowers Congress with greater power. For example, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to set the salaries for judges, determine the size of the Judiciary, establish the scope of the Judiciary’s jurisdiction and the types of cases which come before it. Furthermore, judges cannot serve without the approval of Congress, and Congress may remove judges with whom it is dissatisfied. These are just some of the “constitutional arms” for Congress’ “powers of self-defense” (Federalist 73, Alexander Hamilton).

            The Constitution clearly places many of the operations of the Judiciary under the oversight of Congress – a power not granted reciprocally to the Judiciary. This is made clear in the Federalist Papers (described by James Madison as “the most authentic exposition of the heart of the federal Constitution”), which confirm that subjugating the Judiciary to Congress was deliberate and intentional. Federalist #51 declares:

            The legislative authority necessarily predominates.

            Federalist #78 then proclaims:

            The Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.

            Furthermore, Federalist #49 declares that Congress – not the Court – is “the confidential guardians of [the people’s] rights and liberties.” Why? Because the Legislature – not the unelected judiciary – is closest to the people and most responsive to them. In fact, the Court’s own history proves that it is not a proficient guardian of the people’s rights. For example, after the Civil War, Congress passed civil rights laws forbidding segregation, but the Court struck down these laws and instead instituted “separate but equal” in Plessey v. Ferguson. (While the Court eventually ended this racial segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, that decision was merely the Court’s reversal of its own segregation standard previously established in Plessey.)

            Moreover, had it been up to the Court, slavery would have never ended: in 1857, the Court declared it unconstitutional for the other branches to end slavery or to free slaves. Fortunately, Congress ignored that decision by declaring freedom for slaves in 1862 and President Lincoln also ignored that decision by issuing the “Emancipation Proclamation” in 1863. All substantive progress in civil rights after the Civil War was accomplished only after Congress used Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to remove Reconstruction issues from the Court’s reach. Indeed, history demonstrates that the Court is less than a faithful guardian of the people’s rights, violating the people’s liberties as often as it protects them. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out:

            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. . . . and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

            Today, the Court claims that it is the only body capable of interpreting the Constitution – that Congress is incapable of determining constitutionality. However, the Founding Fathers vehemently disagreed. For example, James Madison declared:

            [T]he meaning of the Constitution may as well be ascertained by the Legislative as by the Judicial authority.

            Constitutional Convention delegate Luther Martin similarly attested:

            A knowledge of mankind and of legislative affairs cannot be presumed to belong in a higher degree to the Judges than to the Legislature.

            The Founders consistently opposed the Court being the final word on constitutionality. For example, Thomas Jefferson declared:

            [T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.

            He further explained that if the Court was left unchecked:

            The Constitution . . . [would be] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

            Allowing the Court to enlarge its own sphere of power beyond what the Constitution authorizes, permitting the Court to usurp the powers of Congress, and tolerating the Courts’ disregard of constitutional separation of powers moves America ever further from being a representative republic and ever closer toward the oligarchy against which Jefferson warned. The Court must be resisted in these attempts.

            Impeachment: The Founders’ Solution

            As noted earlier, judges in previous generations who usurped powers from Congress or the people faced impeachment. But today’s critics claim that the use of impeachment would either make the judiciary a “political” branch (as if it were not already a political branch) or that it would violate the “independence of the judiciary.” Yet, as Thomas Jefferson so accurately cautioned,

            It should be remembered as an axiom of eternal truth in politics that whatever power . . . is independent is absolute also. . . . Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass.

            No judge should ever be so independent that he is unaccountable to the Congress, and thereby the people. As Justice James Iredell (placed on the Court by President George Washington) so clearly explained:

            Every government requires it [impeachment]. Every man ought to be amenable for his conduct.

            Iredell further noted that some officials will behave themselves only under “the very terror of punishment” that impeachment provides. Recent events suggest he was right.

            In 1996, six members of the Supreme Court voted to overturn the Colorado election forbidding special (rather than just equal) rights for homosexuals. Following that flagrant display of contempt for the will of Colorado voters, there was a national call for the impeachment of those six Justices. After this clamor for their removal, those same six Justices suddenly became ardent defenders of the people’s elections and in a subsequent decision unexpectedly and unanimously chastised a lower court that had overturned a statewide election in Arizona. (Interestingly, Thomas Jefferson on multiple occasions called impeachment a “scarecrow” – something used to frighten predators – and the threat of impeachment certainly had that effect on the Supreme Court.)

            Similarly, after a federal judge overturned a binding referendum by the voters of California (“Proposition 209”), national leaders called for the impeachment of that judge. Later, the 9th Circuit ordered the results of the election reinstated and criticized that judge for ignoring the will of the people. Yet, this same 9th Circuit Court had itself shortly before overturned at least three similar elections. Why the flip-flop? The “scarecrow” had been forcefully raised by Congress to make judges accountable for their decisions by returning to the original constitutional uses of impeachment.

            It is true that impeachment is a cumbersome process, and achieving a conviction is difficult. However, on most occasions, just the threat of impeachment produces results. In fact, there are several examples of federal judges correcting their own decisions after hearing Congressional calls for their impeachment; and an actual impeachment sends an even more powerful message to all other wayward leaning judges.

            Although Congress is ultimately responsible for the discipline of judges, far too many of our Congressmen (like far too many of our citizens) have no understanding of the proper use of impeachment. However, a wise political axiom declares that “Congress sees the light when it feels the heat,” and this is especially true on this issue. As citizens, we need to educate ourselves on the proper use of judicial impeachment, and then we need to educate our Representatives, reminding them of the need for judicial reform and alerting them to those judges showing a pattern of abuse. The time for encouraging judicial accountability is once again ripe. This is a golden opportunity for citizens to weigh in and make a difference.

          • Bob Johnson

            So is the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision, where the Supreme Court struct down part of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), non-binding? Can Hobby Lobby do as they wish or do they need to wait for Congress to rewire the law?

          • afchief

            Is the law still on the books?

          • Bob Johnson

            Yes, the law is still on the books. Congress wrote and Obama signed the Affordable Care Act in March of 2010. Since then the law has not been changed, although many attempts have been unsuccessful it trying to modify or repeal the act.

          • afchief

            And obamaNOcare is a violation of the Constitution in the first place. The government has no authority to require anyone to purchase anything.

          • afchief

            I just read some of the stuff you posted and will show you tomorrow where you are WRONG!!

            Have to hit the road and travel now

          • afchief

            There is no law establishing homo marriage. NONE! Only a SCOTUS opinion. Nothing more. An opinion changes nothing. Only Congress can make homo marriage legal. PERIOD!!!

    • NGN

      SCOTUS has handed down its ruling on the matter…

      • afchief

        Ahhhh the blindness of sin i.e homosexuality!!! It cannot see the truth!! It does not want to see the truth!!! It “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness”!!!!!

        • NGN

          not a homosexual but thanks for playing chef. you are probably thinking about the blindness of faux xtians such as yourself. you are too funny

    • NGN

      nopers. It’s legally binding.

      • afchief

        Ohhhhhh, show me the law, yes show me the law, oh show me the law, yesss I want to seeeeee the law!!!!!

        What? Congress has not amended the Constitution???? Ohhhhh there is no law, yes there is no law…….ohhhh there is no law where people who “pack the fudge” can marry!!! No there is noooooooooooo law!!!!

  • Nidalap

    It would have been nice if this was the first reaction, instead of a jail cell…

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Indeed. It looks like it was a very easy fix. The new governor accomplished this in short order. Strange how months before the SCOTUS “ruling,” the previous governor just could not get such a simple executive order accomplished. I thought that Democrats LIKED executive orders?!?

      • acontraryview

        “It looks like it was a very easy fix.”

        While it may look that way, the reality is the Governor is not legally allowed to make such a change. That ability lies solely with the Kentucky Legislature, which is why Ms. Davis requested that the previous Governor convene a special session of the Legislature in order to make such a change.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          Please provide evidence that you have also criticized Obama’s executive orders. Lacking that, your please lacks substance.

          BTW, protecting the religious freedom of a citizen of the state does NOT require the Legislature of a state – it is written into the Constitution of the U.S.

          • acontraryview

            I didn’t criticize the governor’s action. I simply pointed out that he is not legally allowed to make such a change.

            If you have been critical of Obama’s use of Executive Orders in situations where you believe those orders fell outside of his legal authority, then I’m surprised that you aren’t equally critical of the Governor’s decision.

            Oh wait, there’s a word for that……hypocrisy.

            BTW – freedom of religious expression does not mean that one is allowed to decline to perform the duties of their elected position based upon religious beliefs. That is written no where in the Constitution of the US.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I didn’t criticize the governor’s action. I simply pointed out that he is not legally allowed to make such a change.”

            Those two sentences are mutually contradictory, unless you are saying that you are not criticizing the governor for (what you believe is) violating the law? Which would be a most bizarre place to be.

            “If you have been critical of Obama’s use of Executive Orders in situations where you believe those orders fell outside of his legal authority, then I’m surprised that you aren’t equally critical of the Governor’s decision.”

            Oh, I do not for a minute think the Governor’s actions are against the law. Unlike Obama’s EO’s, which violate the Constitution, the Governor’s EO is in accordance with the Constitution. Huge difference.

            “Oh wait, there’s a word for that……hypocrisy.”

            Projection, much?

            “freedom of religious expression does not mean that one is allowed to decline to perform the duties of their elected position based upon religious beliefs.”

            A. She IS continuing to perform the duties she was elected under.
            B. Religious freedom is not something that an elected official gives up. THAT is nowhere in the Constitution. 🙂

          • acontraryview

            “Those two sentences are mutually contradictory, unless you are saying that you are not criticizing the governor for (what you believe is) violating the law?”

            No, they are not mutually exclusive. I completely understand why the Governor is doing what he is doing. I never said that he is violating the law. I said that his action is not legally enforceable as the changing of marriage licenses lies solely with the legislature. He didn’t break a law in issuing an executive order – he is legally allowed to issue executive orders. The question is whether the executive order he issued is legally enforceable.

            “Oh, I do not for a minute think the Governor’s actions are against the law.”

            If the KY legislature is the only body that is allowed to change marriage licenses, how would the Governor’s order to change marriage licenses without the approval of the legislature, be a legal order?

            “Projection, much?”

            What did I say that was hypocritical?

            “A. She IS continuing to perform the duties she was elected under.”

            No, she refused to issue ANY marriage licenses.

            “B. Religious freedom is not something that an elected official gives up.”

            She took an oath of office to perform her duties “without prejudice”. She is failing to follow her oath of office. She did not take an oath that said: “without prejudice unless it is something that against my religious beliefs”.

            If what you say is true, then it would be acceptable for a Hindu clerk to refuse to issue a business license to someone who wanted to open a steak restaurant. It would be acceptable for a Southern Baptist clerk to refuse to issue a marriage license to a couple that was going to serve alcohol at their wedding reception. It would be acceptable for a Mormon clerk to refuse to issue a marriage license to a couple who were going to serve caffeinated coffee at their reception. It would be acceptable for a Christian clerk to refuse to issue a marriage license to a couple who were having sexual relations outside of marriage.

            That is not the case.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I never said that he is violating the law.”

            Above you said “I simply pointed out that he is not legally allowed to make such a change.”

            Are you an absurdist?

          • acontraryview

            Not being legally allowed to change something while issuing an order to do so is not breaking a law. In order for him to break a law, there would have to a specific law that prohibited him from issuing executive orders that are outside of his legal authority. No such law exists.

            Are you not able to comprehend the difference between issuing an executive order that is contrary to the legal process of KY, and the actual violation of A law?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Oh come on! Just admit you refuted yourself. Of course, if he issued an EO outside of the legal process he was breaking some law or the rule of law as determined by the state constitution.

            I think you just want to argue tonight – regardless of the legitimacy of your position. Am I right? 🙂

          • acontraryview

            Oh come on! Just admit that you do not understand the difference between breaking a law (doing something that is illegal) and issuing an order that is outside of the authority of the issuer to implement.

            Here’s what I said, as you pointed out: “I simply pointed out that he is not legally allowed to make such a change.”

            In other words, I questioned the legality of the change – not the issuance of the Executive Order. The Governor is free to issue whatever Executive Orders he cares to. There is no law against him doing so. Therefore, in the issuance of the order he broke no law. Whether or not the content of the Executive Order is within his legal authority to do, is a separate issue. And, according to the laws of KY, the governor is not empowered to change the content of marriage licenses. That power lies solely with the Legislature.

            “Of course, if he issued an EO outside of the legal process he was breaking some law”

            What law would that be?

            I’ll ask again:

            If the KY legislature is the only body that is allowed to change marriage licenses, how would the Governor’s order to change marriage licenses without the approval of the legislature, be a legal order?

            What did I say that was hypocritical?

            Would you agree that those would be reasonable steps for a government employee who has taken an oath of office to perform their job without prejudice to take?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You are cracking me up today, ACV. I actually like that you are sharpening the edge of the cracker here – you remind me of me. (Sorry for the insult. :-))

            I agree with you 100% that the KY Legislature should do the same thing that the SC Legislature did, which KY is about to do anyway. In the meantime, I find this as a necessary, reasonable, and welcome measure to protect the religious freedoms of county clerks in KY, which right they have under the US Constitution anyway.

            But, just the fact that there are so many people upset about this EO is proof positive that this was NEVER about gay “rights” but instead about forcing Christians to compromise their faith or give up their jobs. I think you have to be honest in admitting that there are many people like that – not putting this characterization on you – but there are many who are just ticked at Christians (like I was in my atheist years, but not THIS ticked), and they just want to see some imprisonment or “blood.” The ACLU comes across as crybullies, IMO, and it will not help with perception.

          • Proud Conservative Mom

            The average Lib has no concept of what was factually written into the Constitution (and Declaration of Independence). Most of them make it up as they go along. An example is the separation of church and state. They can try to read those documents until their eyes metaphorically bug out of their heads, but they will never find such language in those sacred documents that they all but destroyed completely.

          • NGN

            its recognized by our govt and courts. you have no idea about the avg Lib, and blanket statements help no one/

    • acontraryview

      It was not the first reaction because the Governor of Kentucky is not legally allowed to make such a change. That ability lies solely with the Kentucky Legislature, which is why Ms. Davis requested that the previous Governor convene a special session of the Legislature in order to make such a change.

  • Josey

    It’s a step in the right direction at least for her and other county clerks in Kentucky who wish to have their names removed, now those who can do more should do so, hope other states will follow suit.

  • DevilSucker

    When Muslims want to impose a theocracy and force their chosen dogmas on others, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, it’s called Sharia and is greatly feared by christians.

    When christians want to impose a theocracy and force their chosen dogmas on others, it’s called religious “freedom”.

    To put it another way, there is a place where religious beliefs supersede the rule of law; it’s called Iran.

    • Mike Stefan

      You miss the point, and you do so because you have not be sufficient educated on the Constitutional protections which are supposed to be granted to each State wrt to things like this. Let me make a couple of points, because there are a couple of layers of truth to point out:

      1) Kim Davis held an elected position, and – as clerk – one of the obligatory duties was to sign marriage licenses. However, she didn’t run for clerk, the law in the State of Kentucky did not acknowledge gay marriage. As such, there was no moral or religious conflict, and no hypocrisy in Davis earning the votes necessary to hold the position, and fulfill the duties therein described.

      2) The Constitution does not address the topic of marriage at all. The Constitution says that all issues not directly enumerated in the Constitution are not to be within the power of the Federal Government, but left to the States, and the people.

      The Federal Government did not do that.

      In its continuing and incessant grab for power and control – and to again continue to diminish the power of each State – BIGGOV decided that it had the right to determine for itself how marriage should be defined; to include ‘marriage’ of men.

      SCOTUS – also abrogating it’s clearly defined limits – agreed, instead of what it should have done (as the dissenting Justices did): claim the issue to be outside the perview of their authority – and by extension the authority of BIGGOV, and left to the States – just as the Constitution demands.

      3) So – suddenly – a State, and all the people within it, get lorded upon them a set of rules which are extra-Constitutional, and not any which they voted upon and decided for themselves. And this religious clerk suddenly is required to perform an act which directly contradicts her own religious belief.

      Not just unfair. UNCONSTITUTIONAL – and on two levels: illicit FEDGOV action, and FEDGOV attempting to supercede a State Constitution – Kentucky’s – which held through their own votes that gay marriage in that State was not to be allowed, so said the Will of the People.

      4) There is only one entity with the power to remove Kim Davis from office: her constituents, through recall election. If they did not wish to do so, I would have hoped that the politicians of Kentucky would have forced this issue and created a Constitutional Crisis, because they’d be in the right, and God-fearing people would be able to poke this increasingly antagonistic and imperialistic Government right in the nose.

      Next, I suppose, DevilSucker will be here complaining that we should also be allowing a State marriage license for a man to marry a goat.

      :rolleyes:

      • Ambulance Chaser

        “2) The Constitution does not address the topic of marriage at all.”

        No, but it addresses the topic of equal protection of the laws. The courts have NEVER been constrained to only find rights if the exact topic is found, word for word, in the text of the Constitution. Such a restraint would be ludicrous. The courts would never be able to hear any cases at all.

        “The Constitution says that all issues not directly enumerated in the Constitution are not to be within the power of the Federal Government, but left to the States, and the people.”

        That is NOT what it says. The Tenth Amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Laws that violate Equal Protection and Due Process are prohibited to the states.

        “So – suddenly – a State, and all the people within it, get lorded upon them a set of rules which are extra-Constitutional,”

        It’s not extra-Constitutional, as I just explained.

        “and not any which they voted upon and decided for themselves.”

        Yes, that’s how rights work in a Constitutional Republic. Sometimes the majority is wrong. Too bad, so sad.

        “Not just unfair. UNCONSTITUTIONAL – and on two levels: illicit FEDGOV action, and FEDGOV attempting to supercede a State Constitution”

        As is its right via the Supremacy Clause.

        “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

        • Mike Stefan

          I’m going to break down your comments one by one – and I’m wondering why you and other anti-

          1) Yes, it does specifically require equal protection under the law – but you have done absolutely nothing to establish that a State choosing for itself is violation of equal protections. Gay marriage is not an equal rights issue; every person had equal protections prior; anyone could marry.

          But anyone couldn’t marry a tree – or a horse – or their sister. If you are demanding that the topic of gay marriage prohibition is a violation of Equal Protection, then you must acknowledge that those who wish to marry their sister (or horse, or tree, or whatever) are – likewise – not equally protected.

          That’s nonsense, and a priori proof that your claim is ridiculous.

          Second: your claim that what I said the Constitution says is NOT what it says is false; you simply added additional words that it says. Claiming that the bolded “NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES” establish your first claim as true, as though reiterating your premise grants it gravitas, is illegitimate. It does not: you still have to prove that it is a violation of Equal Protection, and you have not. As I offered in rebuttal in my first point, there is no violation of Equal Protection simply because gays demand “the right” to be married, because they simply weren’t ever deprived of that right prior: they have chose to abrogate that right because what they wanted to do instead was a deviant alternative. So this isn’t about deprivation: this is about attempting to widen that which is considered societally allowable.

          And society – just like they have for bestiality and incest – has decided that it is not allowable. But I’m not even as intolerant and anti-Constitutional as so many (like you, perhaps?) in demanding that a Federal Government also mandate that there should be universal laws against such. I do not attempt to illegitimately claim that refusing to allow incestual marriages or deviant multiple marriages – or marriages to inanimate objections is a violation of Equal Protection, but I could do so as easily as you just did.

          John Adams plainly warned that the Constitution would be unsuitable to govern any people other than moral and religious people.

          This is exactly an example of that.

          • Aulcie Smith

            I will explain slowly so you can understand everything. See, in this country, it is already legal for two unrelated people of legal age of consent to marry. All the Supreme Court ruled on is state constitutional definitions limiting marriage to between men and women only violated gays and lesbians rights under the 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendments. Not discounting the violation of the Full Faith And Credit Clause.
            I just love it when people bring up the regurgitated incest and bestiality garbage. When Bessie-The-Cow can sign a legal document, call Ripley’s Believe It Or Not. One aspect of civil marriage is to create a legal next of kinship WHERE NONE HAS PREVIOUSLY EXISTED. Family members already have a legal next of kin established and therefore ARE DISQUALIFIED from marriage.
            And finally, polygamy. If the polygamist want to invest the time, effort, and money to overturn those laws, they have the right to try under the Constitution. Personally, I don’t think it would be successful because of all the different changes that would have to occur in the legal system dealing with inheritance and estate laws.
            To sum it up in one sentence : As long as it is legal for two unrelated people of legal age of consent to marry, trying to ban same gender couples from civil marriage will be ruled unconstitutional.

          • Mike Stefan

            Oh, you’re so cute when you think that you stake a claim to higher intelligence when you state you’re going to explain slowly. How do you know that in so doing, you’re merely treating the reader to a more tedious display of your incorrect position instead? lol

            Yeah, and before this change, it was “already legal” for two unrelated people of an opposite sex of legal age of consent to marry. This argument considers the legitimacy of the change, and which Government body should be given the power to make the change. So – really – it’s a two pronged dissent I’m offering:

            1. How are you going to defend the change to remove the word “unrelated”, now that you’ve removed the change to “opposite sex”?

            You also claim a violation of “Full Faith and Credit”, and then offer no argument regarding why. Go ahead and do it. Slowly.

            Next, you demand a disqualification of the legalization of bestiality by claiming that because “Bessie the Cow” cannot sign a legal document, that – somehow – means that bestiality should not be legal.

            I see. But [i]eating[/i] “Bessie the Cow” – presently legal – or keeping “Bessie the Cow” slave on a farm, and milking her against her will…those things are OK.

            Without a legal contract. Didn’t think about those things, did you, while you so slowly explaining, right?

            LOL

            How are you able to – on solid legal footing – demand that Bessie be required to sign a document to engage as one of the parties in marriage, when Bessie gets to sign no document to be forced to be a party @ dinner?

            Eh?

            Yeah, go ahead and convince yourself those points aren’t legitimate, ‘ol Aulcie. We know you have already.

            Your next volley, you claim that one of the points of civil marriage is to establish ‘next of kin’, and – because family members have that established, [i]that[/i] is the reason that marriage involving marriage is disallowed.

            Really? Can you show me the legal precedent for that somewhere? What if there are no surviving members of the family, and the brother and sister are on their own? Why can a will not name whoever they want as legal “next of kin”?

            Anyone can adopt regardless, establishing another route to kinship btw.

            Again, your attempt to counter falls short.

            Last: you try polygamy, and you welcome polygamists to try.

            [i]Try?[/i]

            You either have the right, or you don’t. You’re punting, and telling them to try, instead of offering why the Constitution does or does not violate the rights of polygamists who wish to marry.

            So I’ll call you out. Does the Constitution violate the rights of polygamists, who wish to marry?

            Your argument has no clothes – which I’m sure you’ll shortly be willing to claim also violates the ‘rights’ of people when walking in public.

            Right?

            2. The second prong of the argument challenges the Federal Government to make this proclamation, which is an argument that requires specific enumeration listed in the Constitution wrt to marriage.

            There is nothing specific. Specific means ‘named’. Thus, the power to make this determination should have fallen to States, as it always had prior. That leftist activists realized that they were expending a whole lot of effort with insufficiently rapid results fomented through social influence (media, education system, etc: all the stalwarts of leftist propaganda efforts over decades), they decided to up the ante and attempt an end-around, and harness like-minded activists and – again – force legislation from the bench. That illegitimate, regardless what you claim.

          • Aulcie Smith

            Unrelated to IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS. When any animal has the intelligence to give informed consent, let me know. Anyone can challenge any law in court, if the case is deemed to have merit.Try wrapping your brain around the concept: that is ALREADY LEGAL FOR 2 PEOPLE TO GET MARRIED. All we wanted was the EXISTING laws pertaining to marriage to be applied EQUALLY whether the couples are male/female, male/male, or female/female, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The FF&CC came into play before the Obergefell decision because 37 states had marriage equality, but if a gay or lesbian couple moved to a state that refused recognition of their marriage, their legal status concerning their relationship was null and void.

            BTW, with all the Constitutional “experts” on their side, why did the opponents of marriage equality lose all but one of their federal appeals?

          • Mike Stefan

            I’ve already addressed your arguments. Unrelated to immediate family members has nothing to do with this discussion; it is a red herring. Informed consent for animals is likewise you simply trying again to make a claim which has no legal standing, as you have not established why such would be a requirement of marriage when slaughtering animals to EAT them – or even keep one as a pet – has no such requirement.

            You have stripped bare the right of the people to defend themselves against codified immoral acts, because you are more than willing to allow your Federal Government to enforce your brand of morality instead of recognizing that the only way to allow disparate moralities to co-exist is to allow a variety of moralities to find different States which share commonality. You are guilty of exactly that which you have likely complained for years Christians do – except Christians have never once done what has now been done and supported by you.

            Our morality has been reflected on the local level, and had been the majority for decades. There was never any reason to demand enforcement of such with National Force.

            You don’t want morality reflected in only State or Local law because you are more intolerant than you claim people like me are: I’m willing to allow gays to expend effort to convince enough people in any state they wish to codify marriage there; if they succeed, I at least have recourse to either accept it or find another State. You’re not willing to do so; you demand your way across the entire country, and are trying all sorts of plainly bullsht arguments to get there.

            It’s quite as simple as that, and exactly why the Constitution should never be the basis for such illicit attempts. Only liberals support this effort, and – as such – are the very targets of disdain that John Adams identified over 200 years ago.

            Your efforts to support your stance logically fails on its face, but that doesn’t mean you haven’t won. You have. For now.

            Your claim that “IT IS ALREADY LEGAL FOR 2 PEOPLE TO GET MARRIED” is a strawman, because that is not the only standard. There are lots of them. They can’t be directly related. They can’t be underage. They had to be one man, and one woman – if you were a man, or a woman, you could engage it if you wished.

            That gays wish to do something isn’t isn’t a deprivation of a right. It is a choice by a gay to refuse, and wish to do something else.

            Like a horse buggerer.

            Those that challenged these injustices lost their appeals because our system has become corrupt. By people like you. I am not arguing with you to reverse this decision, because it is quite evident that the decision will not be reversed by anything other than violence. That observation, though, doesn’t stop me from posting the correct position, and forcing you to confront at whatever great depth in your psyche reason and guilt still resides – if it is still alive, or lived, at all.

          • Aulcie Smith

            We didn’t start this conflict– YOU DID. WE’RE not the ones trying to deny “fundamental civil rights”, YOU ARE. And for every restriction on marriage is there for a LEGITIMATE REASON! EXCEPT for banning same gender couples (or 50 years ago interracial couples). The burden of proof falls on the party trying to deny said right. The Court ruled the states have NO compelling reason or vested interest in banning same gender couples from marriage. Unfortunately for you the “Slippery Slope Syndrome” is not a valid legal reason.A law can not be based on “what MIGHT happen” in the future. And even IF sexual orientation is a choice (although a vast majority in the medical field thinks that it isn’t), it is IRRELEVANT. Religion is also a choice. NO ONE is born Christian, Hindu, Muslim, or any other religion. I hate to break the news to you, but your CHOSEN beliefs have no more validity under the Constitution than mine and my “choices.”
            I suffer no guilt. I’ve been out as a gay man since 1989. Been with my spouse for 17 years. Both of our families accept each of us unconditionally and love both of us unconditionally. My nieces and nephew have always had me and Uncle Gene as far back as they can remember. The same for his family.

          • DevilSucker

            A concept long understood:

            “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others, But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

            – Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781

          • Mike Stefan

            Yep. Too bad you don’t seem to possess the intelligence to understand that what was being discussed is things said, and not federal law made. What happened clearly injured Kim Davis.

          • Mike Stefan

            This will be my last post to you, Aulcie; there is no point in addressing you anymore. Your arguments have not improved; they have just gotten increasingly emotional and pedantic – and repetitive. You’ve already won, because what you wished is now law. Restating that you have a right to something because “you have a right to something” is not an argument; it is circular reasoning wrought from an emotionally biased mind, truly not interested in anything other than gettin your way, regardless what really makes consistent intellectual sense, and regardless what liberties were previously taken by the Government to create this conflict. It isn’t even valid to say “it’s right because the SCOTUS says so”, due to the fact that we all know that SCOTUS isn’t always right (and is, in fact, often wrong, as they were regarding Roe v Wade). Literally, you’d be crying in your beer were there two more Scalias or Thomases.

            It’s about the argument. It’s about the words themselves, and reason. It requires wisdom.

            Gays are a minority.
            Polygamists are a minority.
            Bestials are a minority.
            Incestuals are a minority.
            NAMBLA is a minority.

            There are many groups which are minorities – but they are minorities of lifestyle; not race or gender. They have no right to demand of the tax-paying public a codification of their lifestyles using the Federal Government as the whipping boy of the public. They only have the right to engage those halls of Government which haven’t specifically been forbidden to address or empower them and their desires, failing that which the Constitution enumerates. They can petition their States. They tried that. They were even succeeding – sorta. But that wasn’t enough for them: it wasn’t happening fast enough.

            I’ll tell you where this conflict began, because it wasn’t where you claim: it began with the government deciding that they had the right to license marriage, and grant favorites based upon that status for tax and social reasons. There is so much that our Federal Government is that it should not be, and it has created these and many other conflicts. It has set people of different ideologies against each other, when – in the past – they could willingly separate themselves by State and other borders, and still live in harmony using very few common rules to bind the country together.

            It was how the American Dream is supposed to work.

            But totalitarians cannot abide that – and I believe there is a strategy to divide – and undermine the authority of the State in favor of central command and control. Just like totalitarians like it.

            I could give a crap if you want to schtup another oompa-loompa lookin’ dude; it doesn’t affect me. You’ve always had the right of civil union. What affects me is making it impossible for me and my religious views to remove myself from the proximity and participation in behaviors with which I have a problem – and I have a problem with yours.

            Just not for the reason you think.

            But you don’t care about that: you got yours. You are thrilled that the US Government is representing your way of life as acceptable – in straight defiance of the objections of religious people forced, like Kim Davis, to endorse through their participation, even (in her case) their signatures. You support this, even if it really sets the dangerous precedent to allow the federal government do interfere more and more with morals and behaviors of a people who should be allowed to live as they live, as long as they do not hurt anyone.

            So what’s next? Your implicit support of polygamists doing same? That I’d have to live next door to such an arrangement, even if I do not wish my children to view such deviancy as normal?

            What IS deviant to you? Where is the line that society should draw in order to protect itself? Are YOU the only one qualified to draw this line?

            But you didn’t push to simply get Government out of the marriage license business. You wanted more than that: you wanted to stick it up more people’s ass than your partner’s. You DEMANDED a public acceptance of your deviant behaviors – and you wanted that acceptance across the entire land – and there was no better way for you deviant liberals do so than to co-opt our Supreme Court simply because the numbers were convenient for your ideology, since it wasn’t working for you in Congress or your State Capitols.

            And that is the nut of this, and why it is wrong. It didn’t matter to you how many lies had to be told to try to defend this effort; it was going to get done by like-minded liberals, because it didn’t take many of them to bend the entire country to your will, and the country has meanwhile grown far less intelligent and protective of the Constitution.

            SCOTUS is not supposed to be King.

            Your attempt to equate your lifestyle with my religious beliefs is laughable. My free expression of religious beliefs is protected in the Constitution. Yours have just been legislated through Court – which isn’t supposed to happen – and there is no logical or Constitutionally sound basis to do so. Yours requires compliance of mine. Neither should require compliance of the other: that was supposed to be the beauty of allowing each State to decide for themselves.

            Federal Government simply has too much control of us. Taxes should be lower; much lower. Taxes should grant no favorites for children; nor be lower for married people.

            These are all social engineering mechanism, and they all favor control and centralized command.

            In closing, your last questions really illustrate why your slippery slope claims are false. When you ask “why can’t two men get married”, you are asking the same legally defensible question as “why can’t a man marry a horse (yes, I’ve already refuted your claim about consent wrt animals; I’d hope you’d cede my argument as superior – but you doubtless will simply repeat the same incorrect claim)”, or “why can’t a man marry three other men”.

            There is no different a defense of these dysfunctions as there was yours. The argument is the same. It isn’t for Government to force. It is up to States, so diversity of opinion can co-exist – and because sexual orientation isn’t the same as race or gender.

            You falsified (tested and proved) the claim of slippery slope merely by claiming “if polygamists want to try to argue for these rights, they’re welcome to do so” instead of actually acknowledging that even being able to do so makes the slope extremely real.

            The point is: they’re welcome to do so NOW. Because the precedent of this has now been established.

      • DevilSucker

        It always amuses me when the states rights confederates rail on about a Federal control on civil marriage which includes same sex couples, yet who were just fine with the wholly unconstitutional Denial Of Marriage Act which for the first time imposed a Federal definition of marriage — so long as it explicitly excluded same-sex couples. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

        And why, oh, why do homophobes always insist on dragging farm animals into the discussion? Is this some sort of Freudian projection? An unfulfilled (or worse — fulfilled) personal fantasy? I mean, I love my cat dearly…but I wouldn’t want to marry her. I couldn’t trust her with the checkbook.

        As the respondents below have thoroughly eviscerated your twisted view of our Constitutional Democracy, there’s really nothing more to add. I would highly suggest a civics class though. And perhaps a mood stabilizer.

        • Mike Stefan

          What seems to amuse you is when you fabricate positions your antagonist didn’t take.

          I have plainly stated that the Federal Government has no authority to take ANY position on marriage, and DOMA is exactly such an attempt. At least, however, it was a well-meaning attempt to contradict the efforts undertaken by those at the federal level to nationalize the topic, just like you’ve tried – and largely succeeded – to nationalize everything else.

          Bestial behavior is granted equal protection, if gay marriage is. That is exactly why it is valid to bring it up.

          But please tell us, sucker, how exactly you’d plan on getting your dander up to defend against its legalization – cuz you certainly have offered no good reason to do so.

          Likewise, you imagine that you argument is the stronger one. I don’t blame you for imagining: it is the only place it is true.

      • Trivia Jockey

        >>The Constitution does not address the topic of marriage at all

        But it does address equal protection of the laws. That applies to all laws…the Equal Protection clause need not list all the types of individual laws it might apply to.

        • Mike Stefan

          I’ve already covered that, Trivia Jockey – and I added another aspect of it, when I asked if a single taxpayer is forced to pay a higher net percentage of taxes than a married taxpayer. The proper response, of course, is that a single taxpayer is treated just like any other single taxpayer – but does not have access to the same privileges/breaks that a married taxpayer does.

          The same is true of marriage wrt to gay people. You’re left to conclude that if the latter is a violation of Equal Protection, then so is the former – and there nearly endless comparable examples.

          Every man – and every woman – has a right to marriage as traditionally defined. There was no Equal Protection violation. Any single man can choose to marry a single woman. Laws – and rules – have definitions regarding to whom they apply.

          Your claim is that a homosexual man doesn’t want to do that. That doesn’t what Equal Protection means, because there are plenty of single heterosexual men that don’t want to either. The key is understanding the meaning of the phrase “doesn’t want to”. Choice. It matters not that it is not even a consideration for a gay person, it is still a choice.

          Of course, the single taxpayer would LOVE to gain the tax breaks of the married taxpayer – with dependents – but for them, there is no choice. They’re forced to pay the higher rates.

          Your claim of Equal Protection – and/or a violation – is false.

          • Trivia Jockey

            Your analogy isn’t applicable…income level isn’t a “class” of people defined by immutable characteristics. There is also a rational basis for differentiating among people of different income levels, thus that would pass constitutional muster.

            Also, saying “all gay people are free to marry someone of the opposite sex” is nonsensical, because gay people don’t love members of the opposite sex, so you would be de facto excluding them from marriage.

            That being said, your view is irrelevant because the Supreme Court has spoken. Good day.

          • Mike Stefan

            There are nearly endless examples of a differentiation of application of Law – but you are now taking your own liberties to suit your own agenda.

            Where does the Constitution render conditions for Equal Treatment?

            Secondly: whose definition of rational? By definition, the moment you require a test of ‘rational’, you are doing one of two things:

            1. You are requiring one group’s notion of what is ‘rational’ to lord over another’s, or;

            2. You are requiring people to figure this out for themselves

            I defer to #2. Your notion of what is “rational” cannot be considered superior over someone else’s, except for one condition: where you are the majority vote on that determination, and – in that case – not on a Federal level, but State.

            Just as I’ve been saying the Constitution – and its authors – recognizes.

            The problem is that we’re now ignoring this wisdom, as a mob ignores reason and intellect – and so now is the SCOTUS, as it too has been overcome by an demagogic mob, more interested in implementing their ideology than they are in defending how the Constitution works to integrate different ideologies into one colorful and diverse palette.

            You are screwing with that by failing to fully understand the topic and attempt instead to impose your own views regardless of their ability to be defended.

          • Trivia Jockey

            I’m not using my own concept of what is “rational”…the “rational basis test” is a component of judicial “strict scrutiny” review of laws that infringe on constitutional rights. Thus SCOTUS takes into account whether a discriminatory impact has a rational basis or not. It’s part of the Court’s constitutional review.

            So what’s the “rational basis” for barring gay people from marrying each other? “That’s the way it’s always been done” isn’t a rational basis. If it were, black and white people would still not be able to marry each other.

    • Not-an-expert

      But you would support anti-war people who are not prepared to fight in an army because of their conscience? Conscientious objectors?

  • Shaun D.

    God bless Kim Davis! She stands by her convictions.

    And yes, I can hear the perverts now, “she’s been married bla bla times, yada yada yada”.

    Hmm……don’t see anywhere in God’s Holy word where He destroyed two entire cities for having remarried (though biblically it is a SIN).

    God hates homosexuality, and though He LOVES the sinner, as a lost soul without Christ, youth are under God’s wrath! Believe upon Jesus Christ and repent!

    Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:24-32, Genesis 19, Genesis 2

    Merry Christmas! 🙂

  • 201821208 :)

    “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.” Rom. 1:26-27

    • Aulcie Smith

      Big deal. Sauron created the One Ring so he could rule all of Middle Earth. Do you know what The Lord Of The Rings has in common with the Bible? Neither one is the governing documents of the United States. That distinction goes to the Constitution.

      • Mike Stefan

        Then perhaps you – like so many other of these posters who demonstrate ignorance – should actually learn what the words in the Constitution mean, rather than essentially saying “gay marriage, fock yeah…’cuz Constitution!”

        :rolleyes:

  • Mike Stefan

    Lots of posters are discussing what the fix should be, and saying things like the Governor’s actions are a fix.

    Perhaps – but only if the people of Kentucky wish to bend over, and acknowledge the will of the Federal Government on this issue. The People of Kentucky had – up to that point – refused to codify gay marriage. Many States had, including California, when this challenge was brought to SCOTUS.

    But the activists weren’t content to be judged by a jury of their State peers. They wished to troll the waters which they felt contained the majority that they sought (and – as testament to their deviancy, couldn’t even find such waters in CALIFORNIA! lol).

    This is about judicial activism. About liberalism, and its ability to infect and mutate. All it takes is enough members of a certain political persuasion to infect a majority of the Bench, and – viola! – laws!? WTF.

    The dissenters @ SCOTUS explain clearly where the majority drastically overreached – just as Ambulance Chaser has (though I have little doubt that the brainwashing propaganda upon which AC bases his argument is so engrained as to elicit a physical reaction if challenged).

    Here is what should have happened. The Governor has an obligation to the people of Kentucky; not first the federal government. I believe the Governor should have again polled the people of Kentucky to determine whether or not to compel a constitutional crisis over this issue. I believe that this is a serious overreach on the part of fedgov, and issues like this are intentionally chosen to continue the pressure to squash states rights and institute FEDGOV as the sole legit governing body.

    That is not how a representative republic should be; not what the Constitution demands it be.

    If the people of Kentucky demand that their voice be heard in refusing to codify gay marriage in their own state, then the Governor should honor those wishes, and refuse to obey this insipid ruling, forcing the crisis I mention.

    Federal government needs to be challenged and put back in its rightful – far less powerful – place. Everything is being Federalized around you, people. Wake up.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      “Perhaps – but only if the people of Kentucky wish to bend over, and acknowledge the will of the Federal Government on this issue.”

      You mean acknowledge the Supremacy Clause? I should hope they do.

      “But the activists weren’t content to be judged by a jury of their State peers. They wished to troll the waters which they felt contained the majority that they sought”

      Yes, wouldn’t you? If you lost a battle in a state legislature, you would not sue in federal court to get the law overturned? If not, why not?

      “If the people of Kentucky demand that their voice be heard in refusing to codify gay marriage in their own state, then the Governor should honor those wishes, and refuse to obey this insipid ruling, forcing the crisis I mention.”

      And then what? Start another civil war? If you think “foment anarchy” is a good way to solve anything, you’re out of your mind.

      • Mike Stefan

        You cite the Supremacy Clause as though it means that the Federal Government can do whatever they want, and each State has no choice but to comply. That’s not correct: a State can challenge the action of Washington DC by creating a constitutional crisis. The Supremacy Clause does not give the FG right to do or say whatever they want, and such a claim is merely a circular argument.

        The Supremacy Clause also says “but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”.

        It seems as though Kim Davis’ tribulation was a religious test, though we could argue it.

        At what point would you say that the Federal Government has overstepped their authority..because you don’t seem to be able to define such an action.

        That there are or were gay activists is not the issue. That the SCOTUS had leftist sympathizers which complied with the wishes of a minority by claiming a right to cure in the Constitution…is. This ruling exists for one reason, and one only: enough gay sympathizers sat on the court.

        Our laws should not boil down to which political affiliation sits on the court. The dissent in the case made clearly exactly why such an attempt was totally illegitimate, but it doesn’t matter: it came down to majority rule.

        As for ‘fomenting anarchy’, even Thomas Jefferson said “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

        This is a States Rights question, and – rightly – a State has the obligation to dissent to a ruling which is so plainly in violation of that right. Whether it causes ruffled feathers or not is not my concern.

        If you think it causes another civil war, perhaps you gays should have considered that before forcing your ideology on everyone else using anti-Constitutional means.

      • Mike Stefan

        I already responded to this. Where is it?

        I’ll reiterate.

        Supremacy Clause? In order to invoke the Supremacy Clause (as in McCulloch vs Maryland), the attempt to assert authority at the federal level has to be legitimate, and must not institute a religious test over any government employee.

        It is not carte blanche for Washington DC to lord over every State anything it wants.

        The legitimacy is still in question, and the entities granted standing to challenge that authority and validity are the States themselves.

        As for activism: there will always be activists, and they have the right to attempt to bring a case to higher courts. The question isn’t any random movement or activists within the movement. The question is whether or not SCOTUS is corrupt, and activist. I believe it is, and certain members of that court – the dissenters – agree with me, and expressed the illegitimacy of the Court ruling in the manner they did in their dissent.

        As for your claim that a State questioning a SCOTUS ruling automatically will result in a civil war, then YOU’RE out of your mind. The people aren’t supposed to simply take everything the Federal Government does without questioning and challenging it.

        Or – suddenly – do leftists [i]respect[/i] authority, and no longer question it?

    • Joe Soap

      “I believe that this is a serious overreach on the part of fedgov”

      Do you really? Do you also believe that anyone cares what you think? I think you are flogging a dead horse. Nobody is bothered about same sex marriage anymore and you are very much in a minority. Time to move. I’m sure there must be lots of other things you could be outraged about.

      • Mike Stefan

        [i]You[/i] must care, Soaps: you responded, didn’t you?

        Derp.

        You miss the point. I don’t care about gay marriage in the way that you have assumed, despite my explanation. I told the gay poster that he could bed whatever fellow Oompa Loompa he wished, remember? Further, I gave 100% blessing to the Constitutional notion that the decision whether or not to incorporate legal recognition of this Oompa Loompa humping into law should be left to the States.

        This issue – and my position on it – is far more nuanced that you’re acknowledging.

        Do you understand that? Gay Marriage is a red herring. Constitutional violations on the part of the Federal Government is the issue. Tipping the balance of power from the States – which is now a nearly 2 century-old effort – is ongoing. The power should remain as much with the States as possible, because that’s where the PEOPLE are.

        The issue of gay marriage is a convenient vehicle, because the vast majority of people don’t want to deprive two gay people from being able to be together, and – to date – no one has prohibited a gay civil union.

        On a State-by-State basis, however, most people have already spoken: they do not want the tradition of Marriage – its meaning, both civil and religious – to be co-opted by an act that they find immoral. That, though, is not the core and important point, however: the real point is whether the Federal Government should make all States do something that the people of each State have already said that they do not want to do.

        This problem – like so many problems – metastasizes because Government has already taken for itself something to which it wasn’t entitled: determining through legal fiat (a marriage license) whether or not two parties are considered ‘married’.

        Untangle the ball of yarn which federal government has created. Why are so many unnecessary and entangling realities in place now, due to Federal Government intrusion? Can you or anyone else explain why the Federal Government requires marriage licenses at all? Right now, it’s to fulfill the claim that Washington is “being nice to you” by granting special privileges – tax breaks – to married people.

        Of course, such over-reaches of power create their own contradictions. Couldn’t it be said that the single taxpayer filing as such could claim discrimination (read: UNequal treatment under the law) simply because they’re unmarried? Doesn’t the Constitution prohibit unequal treatment under the law, just as the pro-gay marriage movement has claimed about marriage?

        In summary: the Federal Government has created these divisions. None of them would exist were it not for prior intrusions. If you want harmony between people of differing ideologies and religious belief, then dial back the liberties that Washington is taking with YOUR liberties. It’s not about you happening to agree with this ideological position, or that one. It’s about the loss of freedom and the forced divisions being created in the process.

        Learn this well and quickly, wise one.

  • Mike Stefan

    It’s immediately apparent to me that – despite the fact that this topic appears on a Christian website – the respondents are largely not, and that just tells me that they’re another branch of the activist attempt to shout down those who would defend the principles which John Adams explained would be ‘wholly unsuitable for the governance of any other than a moral and religious people’.

    That means you: those who do not share the morality of a religious people.