Kentucky clerk still won't issue same-sex marriage licenses

[blank]

Still surprises me how all these so called Christians ignore the main over all teaching that Jesus taught, which was to be kind and not to judge others.

[seta-san]

 

 

Hold up, you're saying anyone can be a federal judge and just give themselves power? Hell where do I sign up? All this time I thought federal judges were appointed by a POTUS and confirmed by the Senate. Damn you misleading social studies. 

http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

[seta-san]

Still surprises me how all these so called Christians ignore the main over all teaching that Jesus taught, which was to be kind and not to judge others.

you clearly haven't actually read the bible. the bible doesn't say don't judge.. it says a spiritual person judges ALL things. What the bible says NOT to do is to be hypocrite while judging things.

Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man

[seta-san]

If that's the case, treat them just like Kim Davis... Relieve them of their federally mandated duties that state marriage licenses must be issued.

there is no federally mandated duty to issue state marriage licenses. what's ######ed up about this case is that issuing of marriage licenses is handled entirely by the many states. what the federal case that was resolved this last june was saying you can't discriminate. This woman isn't discriminating. She's giving no one a marriage license. This is literally none of the federal system's business. The state courts can handle it. She can be impeached or recalled.... what's happening here is absolutely nothing but federal overreach. they are overreaching both their jurisdiction and their duties.

[mudslag]

http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

 

I see, it's the Constitution that grants the power. I guess social studies was good for something.

[seta-san]

 

 

I see, it's the Constitution that grants the power. I guess social studies was good for something.

no. the point is that that power of judicial review ISN'T granted by the constitution. it's something that the supreme court just decided that it had, by itself, without challenge.

[mudslag]

no. the point is that that power of judicial review ISN'T granted by the constitution. it's something that the supreme court just decided that it had, by itself, without challenge.

You're not doing a good job of making your case.

 

[hagjohn]

 

you clearly haven't actually read the bible. the bible doesn't say don't judge.. it says a spiritual person judges ALL things. What the bible says NOT to do is to be hypocrite while judging things.

Says both....

Matthew 7:1 - “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Luke 6:37 (BBE) - Be not judges of others, and you will not be judged: do not give punishment to others, and you will not get punishment yourselves: make others free, and you will be made free:

James 4:12 - There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?

Edited September 5, 2015 by hagjohn

[123456789A]

I can understand how she's upset because it's against her religion, etc.

But then I think about if this was a Muslim trying to practice their beliefs, the people would want that person to comply or gtfo. So really they can't have it both ways.

If enough people disagree with the law, then they can try getting it changed through the proper channels, but good luck with that.

[Noir Angel]

Refusing a marriage license isn't "practising her own religion", it's forcing it upon others. The US judicial system is not a tool for Christians to impose their beliefs upon others.

[Rippleman]

Says both....

Matthew 7:1 - “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Luke 6:37 (BBE) - Be not judges of others, and you will not be judged: do not give punishment to others, and you will not get punishment yourselves: make others free, and you will be made free:

James 4:12 - There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?

 

In each one the quotes, there is no mention that you are not allowed to judge. It says specifically "do not judge if you don't want to be judged". What if a person is OK ( i am ok with it) with being judged?   Even the last one doesn't say don't judge, it just says "who are you to judge?" That does not mean you can't, maybe that you shouldn't but NOT can't. (remember, i don't believe any of it, just giving insight to something you may have overlooked)

[hagjohn]

 

In each one the quotes, there is no mention that you are not allowed to judge. It says specifically "do not judge if you don't want to be judged". What if a person is OK ( i am ok with it) with being judged?   Even the last one doesn't say don't judge, it just says "who are you to judge?" That does not mean you can't, maybe that you shouldn't but NOT can't. (remember, i don't believe any of it, just giving insight to something you may have overlooked)

[gameboy1977]

She need to read bible about free will.

[seafirex]

Says both....

Matthew 7:1 - “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Luke 6:37 (BBE) - Be not judges of others, and you will not be judged: do not give punishment to others, and you will not get punishment yourselves: make others free, and you will be made free:

James 4:12 - There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor?

Just with what it is been said in this post i quoted it tells me she is getting what she deserve. Everywhere in those text it states that what you do to others will be done to you.

Yes she did judge other, so she is getting judge also. Also the Part "3" is very good to read because it shows that what she is doing is exactly that.

[gameboy1977]

Hello everyone. I am very sorry I am just making fun of that Kim Davis who had divorce at 4 times before, so she is the mistress.....

 

[DocM]

no. the point is that that power of judicial review ISN'T granted by the constitution. it's something that the supreme court just decided that it had, by itself, without challenge.

 

The case was Marbury v. Madison in 1803, and of particular interest is that though there are 9 SCOTUS justices it was decided by only 4-3. 2 justices abstained. 

Also of interest is that the original intent.of the decision was to restrain the power of SCOTUS. Its power had been greatly expanded by the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Marbury decision ruled that this was uunonstitutional, and that SCOTUS was the sole arbiter of what WAS constitutional.

Future courts concentrated a lot on the latter but have ignored the intent of the decision, which limiting the courts power vs that of the representatives of the people.

That said,

the gay marriage decision is a done deal and could only be undone by a future court, which is possible but improbable, or passage of a gay marriage ban constitutional amendment, which is even more rare than court reversals. 

She and others need to deal with it, issue the paper and collect the fees.

BTW: we are Evangelical Lutherans, the largest US Lutheran denomination, which doesn't mean that this church is anti-gay. Quite the opposite, we have gay clergy and members etc. Those slamming Christians and evangelicals with a broad brush need to get with the program that in the modern context neither of those terms is a universal indicator of gay tolerance. In short, you have as much 'dealing with it' to do as this gal does. 

[mudslag]

 

 

http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

yeah. but their power as "final arbiters of the law" is a power they just gave themselves.. the judges only have as much power as people are willing to enforce their rulings. the federal government has been overstepping it's bounds for decades and sooner or later the states are just going to give the federal courts the big middle finger.

Hell must have frozen over cause even those on Fox news disagree with you

https://youtu.be/BEE_ZgcPR-k?t=239

Edited September 8, 2015 by mudslag

[hagjohn]

She is out of jail.

[FloatingFatMan]

She is out of jail.

Why? Did she agree to start doing her job?

[oldtimefighter]

I am so tired this ignorant slut is still in the headlines...

Some people now are trying to compare her to Rosa Parks. LOL Kim Davis is not a modern day Rosa Parks. She is the bus driver who refused to continue his route when Rosa Parks would not change seats.

[TPreston]

Waah i just wanna persecute somebody waah

[DefyTheOutcome]

Now, I really would like someone to explain that decision from the federal judge, she is bound to continue her obstruction the day she gets back to the office.

Anyway, that will not salvage Huckabee's primary campaign and after all, that is better, the more these American Talibans are out spewing their hate, the more people realize how toxic they are and distance themselves from these extremists

 

[techbeck]

Yup. she is out and if she violates her court order, right back in she goes. Lawyers say she is looking for accommodations to not violate her beliefs.  Well, that was was being offered before she got put in jail and she didnt accept it.  This is nothing more that a "hey look at me" incidents and something for political candidates to get votes and attention.  Same kinda BS that is used during every election and little to nothing comes of it.

[ATLien_0]

The only accommodation she is really looking for is her name not showing on the certificate right? 

Anyways she has been told not to interfere with marriages being issued right now and if she does, back in she goes. It amazes me that all these people are rallying for her and her saying she will continue to fight for barring same sex marriages. 

[TPreston]

 It amazes me that all these people are rallying for her and her saying she will continue to fight for barring same sex marriages. 

These people pretty much built their entire campaign around opposing gays, not just marriage on everything down to their existence on this planet.
They will nnot change.