U.S. Supreme Court declines stay 4 clerk refusing to issue gay marriage certificates
- Thread starter crossnote
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Supreme Court decisions that were immoral, disobeyed,people punished for disobeying, and eventually overturned. THIS IS WHY KIM DAVIS AND OTHERS WHO PRACTICE CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE REGARDING THIS ISSUE, IS SO IMPORTANT!
1. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
In arguably the worst decision ever, the Supreme Court ruled that black people were not entitled to the same right of citizenship as white people. After Dred Scott, a former slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and free territory of Wisconsin, had moved back to the slave state of Missouri, it was found that he should be returned to slavery. Scott appealed to the Supreme Court seeking his freedom. The court ruled against Scott and also ruled that the 1820 Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, making slavery constitutionally permitted throughout the entire country and its territories.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states that “all men are created equal,” however this decision found that all blacks, regardless of whether they were slaves or free, were not and could never become citizens. Chief Justice Roger Taney argued that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration."
Taney was a staunch supporter of slavery. In his majority opinion, he wrote that blacks were “an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race”, that “they had no rights that the white man was bound to respect,” and “the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his own benefit.” Taney wrote that blacks were not citizens, and could not claim the “rights and privileges” of citizenship even if their masters took them to free states. Taney went on to say that Scott and by extension all blacks were bought, sold, and treated as ordinary articles of merchandise and traffic therefore had no standing to sue.
The American Civil War broke out four years later in 1861.
1. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
In arguably the worst decision ever, the Supreme Court ruled that black people were not entitled to the same right of citizenship as white people. After Dred Scott, a former slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and free territory of Wisconsin, had moved back to the slave state of Missouri, it was found that he should be returned to slavery. Scott appealed to the Supreme Court seeking his freedom. The court ruled against Scott and also ruled that the 1820 Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, making slavery constitutionally permitted throughout the entire country and its territories.
The Declaration of Independence clearly states that “all men are created equal,” however this decision found that all blacks, regardless of whether they were slaves or free, were not and could never become citizens. Chief Justice Roger Taney argued that "it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration."
Taney was a staunch supporter of slavery. In his majority opinion, he wrote that blacks were “an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race”, that “they had no rights that the white man was bound to respect,” and “the Negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his own benefit.” Taney wrote that blacks were not citizens, and could not claim the “rights and privileges” of citizenship even if their masters took them to free states. Taney went on to say that Scott and by extension all blacks were bought, sold, and treated as ordinary articles of merchandise and traffic therefore had no standing to sue.
The American Civil War broke out four years later in 1861.
K
From Allen Wests website I thought he made some good points.Since no one reads links I'll post excerpts here...
And so it begins. Sadly, it seems America has truly forgotten the intent of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury (CT) Baptist Convention on the subject of separation of church and state. It was Jefferson’s intent to not have in America a head of state who was also head of church, ala King Henry VIII and the establishment of the Church of England.
And so I find it rather interesting that in Kentucky, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis found herself spending last night in jail for her religious belief.
What I found most absurd were the comments of White House press secretary Josh Earnest when asked about Mrs. Davis’ situation. Earnest declared yesterday, “No public official is above the rule of law”; the hypocrisy of the White House spokesperson saying such is absurd, at a minimum.
The hypocrisy doesn’t end there. Consider how it can be that five activist judges can create a new individual right based on personal behavior and subjugate an established individual right — a First Amendment right? How can it be that five activist judges can create a new right and impose their will upon the states — a complete violation of federalism — but not demand every state recognize the Second Amendment rights of individual Americans? My concealed carry license from Florida is not permitted in every state in the Union? If five activist judges belief every state must accept same-sex marriage (as a reminder I support civil unions), then every state must accept my established right to keep and bear arms — and not infringe upon it.
Kim Davis went to jail simply because she was exercising her First Amendment right — which no five activist judges can deny, disregard or denigrate. It’s her First Amendment right that cannot result in her being disparaged — and certainly not arrested. And if the President of the United States can himself float above the rule of law, then how can one arrest Kim Davis for embracing the rule of law — her First Amendment right?Can it be that the “guarantee of happiness” granted to a special interest group, by way of judicial privilege, supersedes the US Constitution?
And so when will we start seeing pastors carted off to jail? Matter of fact, the mayor of Houston already tried by demanding sermons be surrendered. And we have bakers, florists, pizzeria owners and photographers being fined by the state. Not to mention death threats issued against them by the oh so “tolerant.”
But ponder this: a public figure, Lois Lerner, is free and receiving a taxpayer-funded six-figure retirement check while Kim Davis sat in jail. Bowe Bergdahl, a deserter — for whom six American soldiers lost their lives during search and rescue operations on his behalf — roams free while Kim Davis sat in jail. Eric Holder — who was held in contempt of Congress and responsible for Operation Fast and Furious, resulting in the death of US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry —walks about free and probably on a speaker’s circuit while Kim Davis sat in jail. Al Sharpton — who owes the IRS millions in back taxes and has visited the White House some 80 times — did his show on MSNBC while Kim Davis sat in jail. Louis Farrakhan incites violence and talks of killing white people while Kim Davis sat in jail.
So spare me the drivel about how Kim Davis has to realize she cannot act above the rule of law; the progressive socialist left has embraced the sheer essence of lawlessness.Thanks to President Obama, there is not a single Christian in Mosul, Iraq for the first time in 2,000 years. Christians are being crucified, tortured and raped by the folks he called the JV team. But who would have EVER thought a Christian would be carted off to jail in America because they simply believed marriage is between one man and one woman? Thomas Jefferson must be disturbed to know that the State in America is persecuting Christians for their religious beliefs.
However, let me highlight a very important point. In the 2012 election cycle, some 7-8 million Christians did not vote, and that’s out of the number registered to vote. The lack of participation in the electoral process meant the secular humanist left has a willing ally in the White House. A deceiver and liar, who during the 2008 election declared he supported marriage as between one man and one woman. All of a sudden, Barack Obama “evolved,” just as Bill Clinton did — it was under Clinton that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed — with bipartisan support.
What changed? It’s all about special interest politics, not principle.
Kim Davis knows she will one day answer not to Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States — she will answer to the Supreme Judge of the Universe. And just as Saul, the persecutor of Christians, was converted on the road to Damascus and became the Apostle Paul, so did Mrs. Davis have a life-changing event. I say to Mrs. Davis, read my favorite book in the Bible, Philippians, and know Paul wrote that text while imprisoned awaiting his execution. And there he wrote these words, Philippians 4:19 (New International Version): “And my God will meet all your needs according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus.” ....if God is for you, who can stand against you? Certainly not those who seek your demise. My prayers and those of millions are with you.
Folks, you're missing the point about the Kentucky clerk's jail sentence - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com
Well its pretty hard to disagree with his thoughts.I think he sums up the situation quite well.I dont see many arguments that would win against it.
And so it begins. Sadly, it seems America has truly forgotten the intent of Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury (CT) Baptist Convention on the subject of separation of church and state. It was Jefferson’s intent to not have in America a head of state who was also head of church, ala King Henry VIII and the establishment of the Church of England.
Jefferson didn’t want the state to establish religion that would lead to state persecution of religious freedom — the reason why the Pilgrims came to America. That’s why the First Amendment to our US Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In America, the citizen has the freedom of religion; the state can’t institute an atmosphere of freedom from religion.And so I find it rather interesting that in Kentucky, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis found herself spending last night in jail for her religious belief.
What I found most absurd were the comments of White House press secretary Josh Earnest when asked about Mrs. Davis’ situation. Earnest declared yesterday, “No public official is above the rule of law”; the hypocrisy of the White House spokesperson saying such is absurd, at a minimum.
Earnest speaks for a president who’s lied on countless occasions and violated the rule of law — the US Constitution — in as many situations. It was President Obama, along with candidate for president Hillary Clinton, who abandoned four Americans to die in Benghazi, Libya — and did I mention his “overseas contingency operation” was in violation of the War Powers Act — and then they both lied about the impetus behind the attack. And in the case of Hillary Clinton, well, ask any uniformed service member if they’re allowed to deal with classified materials on their own private server.The hypocrisy doesn’t end there. Consider how it can be that five activist judges can create a new individual right based on personal behavior and subjugate an established individual right — a First Amendment right? How can it be that five activist judges can create a new right and impose their will upon the states — a complete violation of federalism — but not demand every state recognize the Second Amendment rights of individual Americans? My concealed carry license from Florida is not permitted in every state in the Union? If five activist judges belief every state must accept same-sex marriage (as a reminder I support civil unions), then every state must accept my established right to keep and bear arms — and not infringe upon it.
Kim Davis went to jail simply because she was exercising her First Amendment right — which no five activist judges can deny, disregard or denigrate. It’s her First Amendment right that cannot result in her being disparaged — and certainly not arrested. And if the President of the United States can himself float above the rule of law, then how can one arrest Kim Davis for embracing the rule of law — her First Amendment right?Can it be that the “guarantee of happiness” granted to a special interest group, by way of judicial privilege, supersedes the US Constitution?
And so when will we start seeing pastors carted off to jail? Matter of fact, the mayor of Houston already tried by demanding sermons be surrendered. And we have bakers, florists, pizzeria owners and photographers being fined by the state. Not to mention death threats issued against them by the oh so “tolerant.”
But ponder this: a public figure, Lois Lerner, is free and receiving a taxpayer-funded six-figure retirement check while Kim Davis sat in jail. Bowe Bergdahl, a deserter — for whom six American soldiers lost their lives during search and rescue operations on his behalf — roams free while Kim Davis sat in jail. Eric Holder — who was held in contempt of Congress and responsible for Operation Fast and Furious, resulting in the death of US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry —walks about free and probably on a speaker’s circuit while Kim Davis sat in jail. Al Sharpton — who owes the IRS millions in back taxes and has visited the White House some 80 times — did his show on MSNBC while Kim Davis sat in jail. Louis Farrakhan incites violence and talks of killing white people while Kim Davis sat in jail.
So spare me the drivel about how Kim Davis has to realize she cannot act above the rule of law; the progressive socialist left has embraced the sheer essence of lawlessness.Thanks to President Obama, there is not a single Christian in Mosul, Iraq for the first time in 2,000 years. Christians are being crucified, tortured and raped by the folks he called the JV team. But who would have EVER thought a Christian would be carted off to jail in America because they simply believed marriage is between one man and one woman? Thomas Jefferson must be disturbed to know that the State in America is persecuting Christians for their religious beliefs.
However, let me highlight a very important point. In the 2012 election cycle, some 7-8 million Christians did not vote, and that’s out of the number registered to vote. The lack of participation in the electoral process meant the secular humanist left has a willing ally in the White House. A deceiver and liar, who during the 2008 election declared he supported marriage as between one man and one woman. All of a sudden, Barack Obama “evolved,” just as Bill Clinton did — it was under Clinton that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed — with bipartisan support.
What changed? It’s all about special interest politics, not principle.
Kim Davis knows she will one day answer not to Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States — she will answer to the Supreme Judge of the Universe. And just as Saul, the persecutor of Christians, was converted on the road to Damascus and became the Apostle Paul, so did Mrs. Davis have a life-changing event. I say to Mrs. Davis, read my favorite book in the Bible, Philippians, and know Paul wrote that text while imprisoned awaiting his execution. And there he wrote these words, Philippians 4:19 (New International Version): “And my God will meet all your needs according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus.” ....if God is for you, who can stand against you? Certainly not those who seek your demise. My prayers and those of millions are with you.
Folks, you're missing the point about the Kentucky clerk's jail sentence - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com
Well its pretty hard to disagree with his thoughts.I think he sums up the situation quite well.I dont see many arguments that would win against it.
2. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
this ruling upheld separate but equal and established “apartheid” as the law of the land. The ruling would stand until overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, and its descendant Jim Crow would remain the de facto law of the South until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plessy was a bi-racial man who refused to move from a “blacks-only” railway car in Louisiana. The Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana’s Separate Car Act did not contradict the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court declared that the Constitution guaranteed legal but not social equality. Although the opinion itself does not contain the language “separate but equal," legal segregation was the de facto effect.
Judge John Marshall Harlan was the sole dissenting vote. In his dissenting opinion Harlan wrote “Our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”
Plessey’s civil disobedience was a forbearer of the tactics immortalized by the civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s including the historical and legendary Montgomery Bus boycott when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat
this ruling upheld separate but equal and established “apartheid” as the law of the land. The ruling would stand until overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, and its descendant Jim Crow would remain the de facto law of the South until the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plessy was a bi-racial man who refused to move from a “blacks-only” railway car in Louisiana. The Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana’s Separate Car Act did not contradict the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court declared that the Constitution guaranteed legal but not social equality. Although the opinion itself does not contain the language “separate but equal," legal segregation was the de facto effect.
Judge John Marshall Harlan was the sole dissenting vote. In his dissenting opinion Harlan wrote “Our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”
Plessey’s civil disobedience was a forbearer of the tactics immortalized by the civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s including the historical and legendary Montgomery Bus boycott when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat
3. Pace v. Alabama (1883)
In Alabama, interracial marriage was a crime punishable by two to seven years of hard labor in a state penitentiary. Tony Pace, a black man, and Mary Cox, a white woman, challenged the law. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was constitutional because it was “race-neutral” and therefore did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling was finally overturned in Loving v. Virginia (1967).
In Alabama, interracial marriage was a crime punishable by two to seven years of hard labor in a state penitentiary. Tony Pace, a black man, and Mary Cox, a white woman, challenged the law. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was constitutional because it was “race-neutral” and therefore did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling was finally overturned in Loving v. Virginia (1967).
4. Korematsu v. United States (1944)
The ruling determined that Japanese internment during World War II was constitutional. Chief Justice Hugo Black wrote that the need to protect American from espionage outweighed the individual rights of Fred Korematsu and the civil rights of all Americans of Japanese descent.
The Court refused to address all the other civil rights violations that marked the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Korematsu also lost a later ruling that established that individual rights are not absolute and could be suspended during wartime.
The Supreme Court case is poignant reminder to anyone that is not concerned with the extent to which the last two administrations have become to scale back on civil liberties as a reaction to the war on terrorism. The Authorization for Use of Military Force grants the president the right to use all "necessary and appropriate force” against any person or country that was involved with the attack on September 11, 2001, including American citizens. The National Defense Authorization Act allows the military to detain United States citizens indefinitely without charge or trial for mere suspicions of ties to terrorism. The Patriot Act allows for warrantless wiretapping and electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
The ruling determined that Japanese internment during World War II was constitutional. Chief Justice Hugo Black wrote that the need to protect American from espionage outweighed the individual rights of Fred Korematsu and the civil rights of all Americans of Japanese descent.
The Court refused to address all the other civil rights violations that marked the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. Korematsu also lost a later ruling that established that individual rights are not absolute and could be suspended during wartime.
The Supreme Court case is poignant reminder to anyone that is not concerned with the extent to which the last two administrations have become to scale back on civil liberties as a reaction to the war on terrorism. The Authorization for Use of Military Force grants the president the right to use all "necessary and appropriate force” against any person or country that was involved with the attack on September 11, 2001, including American citizens. The National Defense Authorization Act allows the military to detain United States citizens indefinitely without charge or trial for mere suspicions of ties to terrorism. The Patriot Act allows for warrantless wiretapping and electronic surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
B
I COMPLETELY understand the importance of civil disobedience. I am not CONFIDENT that Kim Davis has an case for it which she can argue and WIN... Based on the information and facts that I have accumulated. Time will tell if her lawyers can craft a winning argument... one that is sound and isn't immediately hijacked by the IMMORAL MINORITY to be used to flog Christian Morality some more.
B
Mitspa... that is extremely presumptuous of you to make such a declaration. I said I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND and I don't appreciate you asserting what I am somehow ignorant of the importance of civil disobedience. IF you want to argue about the topic SOME MORE than argue the topic and ASK what I think or request clarification.... do not purport yourself to KNOW my intellect and/or thoughts.
B
PennEd, I noticed you liked this comment. COuld you please take the time to respond regarding your perspective on the unfortunate and seemingly LIKELY end result of the immoral majority hijacking any argument made in the courts and using it for their own agenda. I liken this to RIDING THE BACKS of Christian effort and $$$ and driving the whole country into further decay. I assumed that you noticed that was what I was alluding to. In my mind... I keep coming back to my original solution to the problem... no matter much "farther" I cast my net... I catch the same fish.... so you have some different approach to the issue that is left UNMENTIONED?
ANOTHER UPDATE :
9/5/2015
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel
Attached to this message is Kim Davis' mug shot after U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning ordered her to be taken into custody by federal marshals and to remain in jail until she agrees to issue licenses for same-sex "marriage" bearing her name.
Kim mug shot
If the United States of America, founded on religious liberty, has come to this point where a judge jails someone like Kim Davis for religious convictions – then we have lost our religious liberty.
Presidential candidate and former governor, Mike Huckabee recently tweeted: "Kim Davis In Federal Custody Removes All Doubts About The Criminalization Of Christianity In This Country."
Texas Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz said of Davis' sentencing, "Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny." He called on "every believer, every constitutionalist, every lover of liberty to stand with Kim Davis."
+ + This case is really about crushing dissent.
Liberty Counsel Attorney Roger Gannam, who has been in the courtroom defending Kim, said afterward that this is "the first time in history an American citizen has been incarcerated for having the belief of conscience that marriage is a union between one man and one woman."
Roger firmly believes that this case is actually about crushing dissent to an unjust Supreme Court ruling.
"We were able to see through her testimony that this case, more and more, is really about the plaintiffs wanting to force Kim Davis to issue a marriage license despite her sincerely held religious beliefs. It's not about the plaintiffs' desire to get married.
Just as Justice Alito predicted in his dissent in Obergefell, secularists are trying to 'stamp out every vestige of dissent' by targeting people of faith who do not agree with same-sex marriage."
If the United States of America, founded on reliegious liberty, has come to the point at which a judge jails someone like Kim Davis for religious convictions - then we have lost our religious liberty.
Christians in public service and in the private sector are being targeted across our nation. Business owners are being threatened, fined, and, in some cases, forced to close their doors.
Kim is one of several civil servants Liberty Counsel is defending who are standing on biblical principles while exercising their First Amendment rights of religious liberty and right of conscience.
+ + Stand With Kim And Push Back Against Anti-Faith Tyranny!
Kim Davis is a woman of strong faith. As Kim said prior to her hearing, "If the Word of God isn't worth fighting for, I don't know anything that is."
We agree, which is why we are staunchly defending Kim.
Liberty Counsel's team of attorneys is pursuing all legal means to find solutions to the problems created for Kim and other public servants nationwide. That's why we need every friend of Liberty Counsel to declare, Yes! I Stand with Kim Davis and help us stand against our deep-pocketed adversaries.
Kim Davis will not see a legal bill from Liberty Counsel. You make our work possible with your tax deductible gifts and generosity. Please, continue helping us represent Kim and others...
Support
Thank you for taking action with us today!
God bless you,
Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel
****************************
9/5/2015
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel
Attached to this message is Kim Davis' mug shot after U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning ordered her to be taken into custody by federal marshals and to remain in jail until she agrees to issue licenses for same-sex "marriage" bearing her name.
Kim mug shot
If the United States of America, founded on religious liberty, has come to this point where a judge jails someone like Kim Davis for religious convictions – then we have lost our religious liberty.
Presidential candidate and former governor, Mike Huckabee recently tweeted: "Kim Davis In Federal Custody Removes All Doubts About The Criminalization Of Christianity In This Country."
Texas Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz said of Davis' sentencing, "Today, judicial lawlessness crossed into judicial tyranny." He called on "every believer, every constitutionalist, every lover of liberty to stand with Kim Davis."
+ + This case is really about crushing dissent.
Liberty Counsel Attorney Roger Gannam, who has been in the courtroom defending Kim, said afterward that this is "the first time in history an American citizen has been incarcerated for having the belief of conscience that marriage is a union between one man and one woman."
Roger firmly believes that this case is actually about crushing dissent to an unjust Supreme Court ruling.
"We were able to see through her testimony that this case, more and more, is really about the plaintiffs wanting to force Kim Davis to issue a marriage license despite her sincerely held religious beliefs. It's not about the plaintiffs' desire to get married.
Just as Justice Alito predicted in his dissent in Obergefell, secularists are trying to 'stamp out every vestige of dissent' by targeting people of faith who do not agree with same-sex marriage."
If the United States of America, founded on reliegious liberty, has come to the point at which a judge jails someone like Kim Davis for religious convictions - then we have lost our religious liberty.
Christians in public service and in the private sector are being targeted across our nation. Business owners are being threatened, fined, and, in some cases, forced to close their doors.
Kim is one of several civil servants Liberty Counsel is defending who are standing on biblical principles while exercising their First Amendment rights of religious liberty and right of conscience.
+ + Stand With Kim And Push Back Against Anti-Faith Tyranny!
Kim Davis is a woman of strong faith. As Kim said prior to her hearing, "If the Word of God isn't worth fighting for, I don't know anything that is."
We agree, which is why we are staunchly defending Kim.
Liberty Counsel's team of attorneys is pursuing all legal means to find solutions to the problems created for Kim and other public servants nationwide. That's why we need every friend of Liberty Counsel to declare, Yes! I Stand with Kim Davis and help us stand against our deep-pocketed adversaries.
Kim Davis will not see a legal bill from Liberty Counsel. You make our work possible with your tax deductible gifts and generosity. Please, continue helping us represent Kim and others...
Support
Thank you for taking action with us today!
God bless you,
Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman
Liberty Counsel
****************************