Kentucky: Oath Keepers Say They Will Protect Kim Davis From The Law

a reply to: Hefficide

No apologies necessary. I don't get worked up over spelling errors.

originally posted by: windword
There's some real cognitive dissidence going on in these threads!

Well, there's some of that, too! LOL! (disagreement - protest against official policy)

The Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage. Indeed, no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue. It is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition. Only Congress can write the laws. The SCOTUS do not have the authority to make laws. Kim simply is keeping with the strict wording of the constitution. What the SCOTUS did was make something up and OK'D it

originally posted by: Ceeker63
The Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage.

You're right. It doesn't guarantee the right for ANYONE to enter into marriage.

Only Congress can write the laws. The SCOTUS do not have the authority to make laws.

Right again. Neither Congress NOR SCOTUS wrote laws about same-sex marriage.

Kim simply is keeping with the strict wording of the constitution.

Actually, she's not. She violating the 14th amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

What the SCOTUS did was make something up and OK'D it

Show me the law they made. They made NOTHING up. They referred to the 14th amendment and found that states laws banning marriage to its citizens EQUALLY violated the Constitution.

originally posted by: Ceeker63

The Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage.

Constitution fail.

The Constitution guarantees a law that is good for some is a law that is good for all. There are financial and legal benefits to marriage and to deny them to some is un-Constitutional.

originally posted by: Ceeker63
The Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage. Indeed, no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue. It is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition. Only Congress can write the laws. The SCOTUS do not have the authority to make laws. Kim simply is keeping with the strict wording of the constitution. What the SCOTUS did was make something up and OK'D it

I am going to respond even though i know you wont respond back seeing as you grossly misunderstand what happened here.

First important detail no law was created by scotus.

Second the forefathers were deist not christian but you would have to read philosophy and history to know this. Some were even downright panthiest.

Third scotus ruled on an inconstitutional law that already exists. Thats what they do.

Fourth Some states were providing legal contracts to only strait couples. This is a gross violation of the 14th. So you have a problem with the 14th. Aka the constitution.

Fifth marriage to christians is not a legal document, therefor the supreme court did not rulw about marriage at all. They ruled on a gov contract given for tax, end of life, and estate purposes.

Just to state again the constitution was not made by christians it was made by people who belived God was revealed by nature itself not the church or jesus. Look it up. Most of the forefathers were very skeptical of organized religion because it makes people irrational exactly like this situation. They wanted no part in picking sides of an argument they wanted to be neutral and trade with the world. There are many many autobiological refrences to this.

It was not until the christian right in the 60's that people started rewriting history assuming jesus wrote the constitution

Once again certain people are focusing on rights you are soon going to lose anyway.

a reply to: Stormdancer777
well gee, if we give up and stop focusing on them, we will be losing them alot faster!!!

we're not a theocracy, live with it!

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Ceeker63
The Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage.

You're right. It doesn't guarantee the right for ANYONE to enter into marriage.

Only Congress can write the laws. The SCOTUS do not have the authority to make laws.

Right again. Neither Congress NOR SCOTUS wrote laws about same-sex marriage.

Kim simply is keeping with the strict wording of the constitution.

Actually, she's not. She violating the 14th amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.

What the SCOTUS did was make something up and OK'D it

Show me the law they made. They made NOTHING up. They referred to the 14th amendment and found that states laws banning marriage to its citizens EQUALLY violated the Constitution.

Well..to be fair she was refusing everyone liscences. Which means she was protesting the scotus ruling but not really the 14th on her own. Problem I dont get is this is now the law. If you dont agree with it step down. Its not going to change.

I think the more radical christians just dont read much history other than bible, dont get the laws were not made for christianity, the forefathers were often sarcastic about religion especially in their private writing, the god they were twlking about was revealed to them by nature and the cosmos not jesus. Jesus wasn not the "under god" they were talking about. It was THE god that existed for every religion not just christians. It was the prime mover.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
Once again certain people are focusing on rights you are soon going to lose anyway.

How's that? What rights are we going to lose?

originally posted by: luthier
Well..to be fair she was refusing everyone liscences. Which means she was protesting the scotus ruling but not really the 14th on her own.

QUESTION: when exactly did she stop issuing marriage licenses?

Did she stop the day of the ruling? Or did she stop when a gay couple requested a license?

Found it:

She stopped issuing marriage licenses a few hours after the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in June, saying that granting licenses to gay couples would violate her religious convictions. www.nbcnews.com...

a reply to: Annee

I don't see really where it matters since well she's using religion as grounds for not issuing them claiming that her religious freedoms are being infringed on so well.
she either doesn't believe in marriage, or she doesn't believe in gay marriage and didn't want to discriminate so just decided that the wouldn't issue any at all...

I highly doubt if she doesn't believe in marriage......

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Annee

I don't see really where it matters since well she's using religion as grounds for not issuing them claiming that her religious freedoms are being infringed on so well.
she either doesn't believe in marriage, or she doesn't believe in gay marriage and didn't want to discriminate so just decided that the wouldn't issue any at all...

I highly doubt if she doesn't believe in marriage......

I was just curious.

Anyway, did some reading: She does not qualify for "relief" because her job is simply to verify clerical information. In no way does her job have anything to do with the marriage itself. If she was required to officiate a marriage --- then she'd have grounds.

22 pages and they are throwing homosexuals off buildings in the ME, and beheading, and crucifying, and we are going to open our borders to the radicals,

It doesn't take long, some of us old timers may be gone , but the legacy will be hell for our childrens childrens,

If not sooner.

Choose your poison.

You have been choosing to believe a lie.They do not know, nor do they understand, for He has smeared over their eyes so that they cannot see and their hearts so that they cannot comprehend.You would not look intently at the end of what was fading away.

a reply to: Stormdancer777

They do not know, nor do they understand, for He has smeared over their eyes so that they cannot see and their hearts so that they cannot comprehend.

Who is He? Obama?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: windword

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Teikiatsu

You mean I have the right to marry a upermodel, even if she says No?!?!? Awesome!

You're the second person, that I've seen, to make this argument? What is it with you people and your obsession with forcing other people to do what you want them to? Where in heck do you get the idea that Marriage Equality means "Slavery"?

There's some real cognitive dissidence going on in these threads!

I'm pointing out the absurd with absurdity. See also, sarcasm.

There is no such thing as the 'right to marriage'. A right is intrinsic to one person, not a group of people. A right does not require a bureaucracy. A license contract requires consent of two people and some type of official to validate. Ergo, no one has a right to what is more appropriately a civil privilege.

Also, it's 'dissidence' != 'dissonance'

"What is it with you people and your obsession with forcing other people to do what you want them to? "

Talk to Kim Davis about that one...

Dont be petty. The gov was with holding contracts from people. The constitution says you cant do that. Do you get it?

No, they were not withholding the contracts based on sexual orientation. There was no litmus test for 'straight' or 'love'.

A gay man was able to get a contract, the same as a straight man could. A straight man could not get a union contract with another man. A straight woman likewise could not get a union contract with another woman.

Currently, adults cannot get a union contract with a minor. Direct relatives cannot get union contracts. More than two people cannot get a union contract. Two people already in a union contract cannot add a third person to their contract. Are they being discriminated against?

Government reserves the right to restrict many kinds of contracts in multiple ways.

Labor contracts. Employer contracts. Construction contracts. Any validated agreement between multiple people.

Minimum wage. Minimum age. Criminal record. Regulations.

So long as the contract restrictions are applied EQUALLY there is no issue. In this case, state governments said a man and a woman could enter into a union contract, so long as they met other criteria and were consenting. Like I said before they were not asked if they loved each other, they were not asked if they were heterosexual. The government official looked and saw a man and a woman.

I know most of you think it's splitting hairs. But that is the way of most laws.

Speaking of laws, when did Kentucky legislators pass, and the governor sign a law to redefine their union contract criteria to include same sex? What law was Kim Davis not fulfilling? As much as everyone loves to think otherwise, separation of powers says that no judiciary (even the SCOTUS) cannot write or rewrite laws. They can only strike down the law for being in conflict with state or federal constitution. Meaning Kentucky (and all the other affected states) need new laws to be passed in the legal manner.

Personally, I think we need to get 'marriage' out of government. There is a recognized need for a committed couple of people to migrate legal obligations from their family to the person they have decided to enter into a union with. There is a compelling interest by the government to endorse a stable family unit to bring up the next generation of taxpayers. There is no reason why a civil union contract can't cover all those issues, regardless of the genders of the people getting the contract. Simply restrict any tax benefits until the couple either produces or adopts a child.

dp

a reply to: Annee

So, it was a preemptive strike! Just like the man who says he got fired for refusing to drive the rainbow bus in Calgary. Fact is, he was never asked to drive it.

How were her religious freedoms being infringed upon, though, when she hadn't even had a request for a license from a same-sex couple?? In both of these high-profile cases, it has been because they see the very existence of a right or privilege of someone they don't approve of, as a threat to their way of life. In Kim's case, enough to bring a lawsuit without even having been asked to issue a marriage license to gay people.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Annee

So, it was a preemptive strike! Just like the man who says he got fired for refusing to drive the rainbow bus in Calgary. Fact is, he was never asked to drive it.

How were her religious freedoms being infringed upon, though, when she hadn't even had a request for a license from a same-sex couple?? In both of these high-profile cases, it has been because they see the very existence of a right or privilege of someone they don't approve of, as a threat to their way of life. In Kim's case, enough to bring a lawsuit without even having been asked to issue a marriage license to gay people.

Yes. Preemptive. That's why I wanted to know when she did it.

This article is the best I've read so far. It's not about Oath Keepers, so I posted it in another thread.

But, it should be read: www.dailykos.com...

Office Depot refuses to print anti-Planned Parenthood fliers, citing ‘persecution’ policy

www.washingtontimes.com...

Rights, everyone trampling on one anothers rights and all feel righteous.

Strange times we are living in.

Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the person that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.