Ok then, scratch marriage all together. The 14th, Equal Protection. The Kentucky County government is violating the 14th Amendment.................right?
Appeals court rules in favor of gay marriage in Kentucky
- Thread starter mstp1992
- Start date
Ok then, scratch marriage all together. The 14th, Equal Protection. The Kentucky County government is violating the 14th Amendment.................right?
No they are absolutely not violating the 14 at all. Just because somebody wearing the black robes of death said it, does not make it so
Sovereign:
1. a monarch; a king, queen, or other supreme ruler.
2. a person who has supreme power or authority.
3. a group or body of persons or a state having sovereign authority.
Which of these are you using in your definition?
Do you mean one of these? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen
Do you believe she isn't a member of the United States?
Let's back this party train up, and start simple.
Do we agree that there are Federal Courts?
If yes:
Do we agree that Federal Courts can order State governments to stop violating the Federal Constitution?
Do we agree that there are Federal Courts?
If yes:
Do we agree that Federal Courts can order State governments to stop violating the Federal Constitution?
The proof that the feds are unvalid: what are they doing to punish this lady and half of tx over an opinion made by the black robes of death? They have no power
Sounds like you're assigning her illegal alien status here.
Both are now. Ha ha!
Btw, no i do not believe sovereign. Citezens are a member of the united states, i prefer several states
Apparently in Kentucky. Neither are protected the news reports say she does not isssue straigjts either see to me ptotected means the feds come in like its jade helm
Remember when the feds swooped kent st? I think thos is what the activists wish they would do to kentucky
Um, that was done by the State of Ohio. States are fond of trampling the rights of citizens. It's the Feds who consistently have to protect individual civil rights.
This is true and I disagree with the courts ruling on Constituional grounds even though morally I agree with it and support gay marriage.
Regardless though, she is a government employee and bound by their ruling. If she wants to take a moral stand, she can quit. Otherwise she needs to follow her employers rules and do her job.
So, Kiting, do you believe the People only have the rights specifically delineated in the Constitution?
Or, alternatively, that the SCOTUS only has the power to enforce those ones?
No,
Sorta. Its the legislative branch that is responsible for making new laws, not the judicial branch.
It's kind of funny how people contort the actual Bible to mesh with their political agendas.
When Jesus was faced with a similar conundrum regarding taxes and whether one should be paying an allegiance to 'God or Caesar', he proclaimed:
'Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar; render unto God what belongs to God'.
A government issued marriage certificate is certainly nothing related to her church. So, issuing it per the government requirements is clearly established in her own Holy Book as perfectly fine.
She and her church are under no obligation whatsoever to recognize those gay marriages as religiously 'legitimate'. But filing the government paperwork is clearly 'rendering unto Caesar' just as Jesus instructed. Maybe she'll try to file another lawsuit to avoid paying her taxes now, too, because that would be consistent with her position here on the gay marriage licenses.
When Jesus was faced with a similar conundrum regarding taxes and whether one should be paying an allegiance to 'God or Caesar', he proclaimed:
'Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar; render unto God what belongs to God'.
A government issued marriage certificate is certainly nothing related to her church. So, issuing it per the government requirements is clearly established in her own Holy Book as perfectly fine.
She and her church are under no obligation whatsoever to recognize those gay marriages as religiously 'legitimate'. But filing the government paperwork is clearly 'rendering unto Caesar' just as Jesus instructed. Maybe she'll try to file another lawsuit to avoid paying her taxes now, too, because that would be consistent with her position here on the gay marriage licenses.
Yes, but, do you believe that only the specifically enumerated rights are protected by the Constitution?
What do you believe the Ninth meant? The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Right to Travel
Right to Vote
Right to Privacy
Presumption of Innocence
Do you believe the SCOTUS cannot/should not protect those rights via the federal courts?
This is a good iteration of what I was saying earlier, but I want to include my earlier caveat.
I can plausibly create a religious doctrine that requires an absolute refusal, or intervention of, in dealing with same sex marriage. Such as a passage of: Go ye and forcibly stop, with every fibre of ye old self, every demon-homosexual coupling, including one of marital sin.
If someone believed that, then yes, it would be hard for them to do the job. But, as my current understanding of anti-ssm Christianity, it simply refuses it religiously...it has no comment on issuance of non-religious licenses.
This is not my understanding of the Christian position on SSM. I've witnessed lots of comment on issuance of non-religious licenses.
Such as?
I presume, perhaps wrongly, that you mean that those specific Christians believe that issuance is against their religion.
I get that, but that is specifically what I am questioning. That is a conclusion.
I'm asking whether there is "doctrine" or "dogma" that actually supports that. Any Christian can simply say, "I can't do X because of God", I'm questioning the religious logic used to reach that point.
Ok, so unenumerated rights can, in fact, be protected via the Federal Courts.
Just, specifically, not Marriage.
Do you think we should have a governmental body to research, discuss, and decide which rights are, in fact, protected?
Biggest issue is that she's an elected official. It's really hard to remove elected officials from office before their term is up. Even harder if the electorate supports her in what she's doing.
We actually havn't made too many provisions to make sure elected officials do their job other then to rely on the electorate to police that. I don't know the Kentucky state constitution but it's quite possible that nothing can be done, the judges can issue ruling after ruling ordering her to issue licenses but they lack the power to remove her from office or force her to do so.
I would say you can and the reason I say that is the church has never condemned clerks for issuing licenses to divorcee's etc.
But it's always sort of a judgement call when it comes to participating in sin and doing your job. And given the nature it's often a hard one to make. For example I work with a company that does storefronts and I don't know what I would do if asked to quote or help put in storefronts for an abortion clinic. I would likely ask the owner to assign it to someone else if possible, but if he doesn't I don't know. I hate abortion to me it's murder and absolutely no different, I honestly see no difference between abortion and swinging a newborns by his legs so that his head breaks on a metal pole, but I have a wife and 2 babies at home and another on the way, it would be very hard to quit. Fortunately the owners are conservative so I think they would likely decline to bid on an abortion clinic anyways.
How are you participating in sin? How is a non-religious ceremony, for "marriage", any different than a non-religious ceremony for anything else? Also, this is, basically, a filing/statistics issue, they print and issue a license.
I don't think abortion is equatable, because in your mind the act, regardless of words, is murdering a baby. In your mind (or anyone else's) "marriage" means very different things, it isn't simply the act.
I'm not attempting to argue, I am truly curious, you are one of the very few strictly religious on here.
Ultimately, isn't failure to uphold the law essentially a violation of the law? State statutes would rule here and maybe it would take a recall, but I would wonder if there's a case for impeachment here.
Of course. However that doesn't mean they always get it right. They get it wrong quite often. They don't get to just make up rights either.
You don't think they would be correct in ruling that we all have the right to cupcakes with frosting and sprinkles do you?
Anyway, as I said before, I agree with the ruling morally. I just wish it could have been accomplished legislatively or by constitutional amendment. Also I stated quite plainly that the government employee in question must respect the ruling and abide by it.
I was just curious to find out your position. Clearly OiT just disbelieves in any federal authority, so I figured we'd see where you stand.
You specifically believe that the SCOTUS is right on some of them (listed above), but they are wrong on marriage. But you also seem to be ok with them making that decision. I think it reasonable to think you believe that the recent case took care of that issue, and really isn't up for further review.
Probably not much I can help you with unfortunately. I can differentiate between state marriage and marriage in the eyes of God and honestly if I where a clerk I would issue the licenses.
My guess is she can't in her mind differentiate the two or perhaps she feels that by issuing the license she's somehow personally approving it. Oddly enough I have sympathy for bakers who have to make wedding cakes for homosexual marriages because I would see sending one of my products for use in the reception is implicit approval upon what is happening, but I would also have similar objections if I knew a heterosexual couple included at least one person who unbiblically divorced a previous spouse. So long story short I probably shouldn't bake wedding cakes. However I personally see the clerk's job as being less of a direct connection to the whole thing. The issuing of the license is a more function of the state anything else, the law does not make moral judgements.
I don't entirely like to second guess people when it comes to participating in sin especially when they take uncomfortable routes to avoid said participation. But she's not taking the uncomfortable route by resigning. She's instead sitting and plugging her ears and going "can't hear you, can't hear you" And I think that is my biggest problem here. The law is clear and a county clerk does not have veto power over the law. So if you feel that you can not do your job as the law prescribes get out.
I will also point out that this woman is an elected official, which means she likely has other sources or ways to obtain other sources of income other then her job as county clerk. No person could rely entirely on income from an elected job to live on as every time your term ends you may lose it. So it should not be too terribly uncomfortable to leave her job. It is not like asking a person to violate their beliefs in a job that they rely entirely upon to feed their family.
I HATE the idea of second-guessing a person's religion, that is why all of the new "religious freedoms" stuff concerns me so greatly. If we agree that we should not question/second-guess a persons "religious beliefs", or in this case, the logical thought process leading to the conclusion, than ANYTHING can be refused by anyone. And apparently some people believe even government officials can refuse.
That, to me, reads like a blanket provision for unfettered discrimination.
I don't think you can be arrested or brought to trial for failure to uphold the law. Especially the way she's doing it by refusing all marriage licenses period, it looks like it's more or less failure to do your job. . . I'm not sure that's a crime.
The procedure to remove different elected officials from office is always different. The problem is that many times it involves a recall election. If the people in her county support what she's doing for the most part, she won't be recalled as she would likely win an recall election if they even did have it.
It's sort of a weakness IMO with local/state governments. Another weakness is the ability of state legislators to leave the state for a neighboring state to prevent a quorum in the legislature and prevent a law from being passed.
