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.
A
I know you, and you alone, are always right and all but, she was elected last fall. The law changed in June. She wasn't hiding anything and she took on the job when it didn't include breaking HER first ammendment rights.
But, yeah, back to remembering you are the only one who understands everything even when you flip flop (Post 97) on what you say.
But, yeah, back to remembering you are the only one who understands everything even when you flip flop (Post 97) on what you say.
V
A failure to grasp reality. A SCOTUS decision is not "new law," much as you would obviously like it to be. As I said in those two posts I linked for you, where I explained both the legal and spiritual precepts involved, the impact of any Court decision is that it merely directs legislatures, Congress, or in some limited cases, both, to rewrite the laws on the books to conform to the decision.
Thus far, Kentucky hasn't held a legislative session to do so. They won't either, until January. In fact, no states have actually held legsilative sessions to change their laws. The SCOTUS decision means that they must do so, and until such time as those laws are changed, the states cannot enforce the laws still on the books.
What Davis is doing is enforcing the existing law, by declining to issue licenses. Yes, it's a fine line, but she, as county clerk, is not engaged in enforcement but compliance. There is no law to comply with, only a SCOTUS decision -- which, again, is not "law," but legal opinion.
Obviously, by this incorrect "legal" interpretation, it is fortunate you are not a lawyer or a judge.
Thus far, Kentucky hasn't held a legislative session to do so. They won't either, until January. In fact, no states have actually held legsilative sessions to change their laws. The SCOTUS decision means that they must do so, and until such time as those laws are changed, the states cannot enforce the laws still on the books.
What Davis is doing is enforcing the existing law, by declining to issue licenses. Yes, it's a fine line, but she, as county clerk, is not engaged in enforcement but compliance. There is no law to comply with, only a SCOTUS decision -- which, again, is not "law," but legal opinion.
Obviously, by this incorrect "legal" interpretation, it is fortunate you are not a lawyer or a judge.
A
I swear. I would have just quit. So she's stuck in federal prison until the KY actually enacts a law? Good thing there is no "gay agenda," huh?
One of the things the homosexual community has done is move into states where they want to force the laws. I'd love to know how long that dear sweet homosexual couple has lived in that county. We know they've been a couple for 17 years. How long have they lived in Rowan? Stuff the news won't ask.
One of the things the homosexual community has done is move into states where they want to force the laws. I'd love to know how long that dear sweet homosexual couple has lived in that county. We know they've been a couple for 17 years. How long have they lived in Rowan? Stuff the news won't ask.
A
Good scripture... I am GUESSING you believe Kim Davis is in jail because of the GOSPEL MESSAGE... I have already concluded for myself that she is in jail for refusing to do the JOB she was elected to perform...maybe she can evangelize the inmates while she is there... THAT COULD COUNT!!!
Old adage:
If one person says your a duck, ignore him.
If two people call you a duck, consider it.
If three people call you a duck, start quacking and paddling with your webbed feet.
How many people have called you a duck? And even after you know better, you stick with the same conclusion. What does that say about you getting your understanding from God? Frankly, I don't remember him concluding wrong ever. Neither does he get snitty or attack everyone over his righteousness. At least his righteousness is real.
We want only one thing from you -- remember God!
That's right At what... IT IS A RETORT... NOT A FALSE OR MALICIOUS REPORT.... I woulda thought YOU might know the difference. This thread HAS revealed a variety of interesting stuff.
Last edited:
A
Actually, she's in federal prison (not merely jail -- there is a vast difference) because the Supreme Court broke our very first amendment. Frightening, isn't it?
More frightening that you don't see it as any big thing.
(And I'm still a coward and would have simply quit the job. Jail doesn't scare me. Prison terrifies me!)
More frightening that you don't see it as any big thing.
(And I'm still a coward and would have simply quit the job. Jail doesn't scare me. Prison terrifies me!)
B
I haven't FLIP FLOPPED AT ALL... so welcome to my "people with reading comprehension problem list." Asserting I THINK I am always right is just more of the same repugnant divisive commentary that is become increasingly OBVIOUS in this thread... I am fine with letting the faction lines fall. Tough times are coming...
HOWEVER, YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT I THINK and have demonstrated you do not understand what I WRITE so please refrain from addressing me also.
HOWEVER, YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT I THINK and have demonstrated you do not understand what I WRITE so please refrain from addressing me also.
Kim is an elected official who was elected largely because an obvious majority of residents believed her platform. She represents the will of the people, including even those who didn't bother to vote, or supported her opponent, and is holding to her commitment to honor God while in office. Some of the most famous politicians in history have taken similar stands.
When a heterosexual couple applies for a marriage license, it's just plain "American" not to ask them about any possible adultery in their past. When tow men or two women come along wanting to "marry", that doesn't require an evaluation whether the request is an obvious disgrace against God, country, and personal morality. Such couples are blatant sinners defying all moral codes of all time.
The USSC didn't make their judgment based on what the Constitution declares. In fact their decision tramples the rights of Americans who are now being punished for having an opinion contrary to their illegal law. The USSC is not authorized to create law or regulation, adding detail to the Constitution, but a spineless Congress is standing aloof over it.
It's one thing for them to uphold a premise of law, but quite another travesty to uphold blatant immorality in the name of pursuit of happiness.
Suppose they hear a case seeking legalization of full nudity in public everywhere in the interest of pursuit of happiness. Success would then require admission of nude people to visit your church? Teachers could stand before your children teaching them while nude? Your children might be required to be nude to attend school, in respect of others who are comfortable with that state of being? That's a current debate in a local newspaper's "Letters to the Editor". Your sales staff could not be discriminated against if they choose to work in their underwear or nothing at all?
The larger issue is what becomes of the moral rights of the 98% not affiliated with immoral behavior. Why shape the national morality around a tiny minority of perverts?
The Bible is clear concerning sexual sins. Yes, adultery and homosexuality are deadly sins that spread their effects like a metastasized skin cancer going to the organs. Child molestation carries a high penalty as described in the New Testament.
But some body issues carried lighter penalties such as exile, or exclusion from congregational worship, and often required the offering of a pigeon or whatever, or just waiting until a situation passed. God chose to teach degrees of sin. All sins are not equal, some forgivable, others not. He hasn't changed, but has taken steps to help man change.
When a heterosexual couple applies for a marriage license, it's just plain "American" not to ask them about any possible adultery in their past. When tow men or two women come along wanting to "marry", that doesn't require an evaluation whether the request is an obvious disgrace against God, country, and personal morality. Such couples are blatant sinners defying all moral codes of all time.
The USSC didn't make their judgment based on what the Constitution declares. In fact their decision tramples the rights of Americans who are now being punished for having an opinion contrary to their illegal law. The USSC is not authorized to create law or regulation, adding detail to the Constitution, but a spineless Congress is standing aloof over it.
It's one thing for them to uphold a premise of law, but quite another travesty to uphold blatant immorality in the name of pursuit of happiness.
Suppose they hear a case seeking legalization of full nudity in public everywhere in the interest of pursuit of happiness. Success would then require admission of nude people to visit your church? Teachers could stand before your children teaching them while nude? Your children might be required to be nude to attend school, in respect of others who are comfortable with that state of being? That's a current debate in a local newspaper's "Letters to the Editor". Your sales staff could not be discriminated against if they choose to work in their underwear or nothing at all?
The larger issue is what becomes of the moral rights of the 98% not affiliated with immoral behavior. Why shape the national morality around a tiny minority of perverts?
The Bible is clear concerning sexual sins. Yes, adultery and homosexuality are deadly sins that spread their effects like a metastasized skin cancer going to the organs. Child molestation carries a high penalty as described in the New Testament.
But some body issues carried lighter penalties such as exile, or exclusion from congregational worship, and often required the offering of a pigeon or whatever, or just waiting until a situation passed. God chose to teach degrees of sin. All sins are not equal, some forgivable, others not. He hasn't changed, but has taken steps to help man change.
A
Wow! You really like to talk about subjects you don't understand.
She can't be dismissed. She was elected. Thus no grounds whatsoever for dismissal. (Same problem my state is having with our DA. First she announces, after being elected, that she won't hold one law in any standing whatosever -- sure enough, she was saying same-sex marriages wouldn't be prosecuted, as if somehow that actually makes them legal. AND then she broke the law to investigate criminals. All that and we can't get rid of her because she was elected. It goes both ways.)
She can't be dismissed. She was elected. Thus no grounds whatsoever for dismissal. (Same problem my state is having with our DA. First she announces, after being elected, that she won't hold one law in any standing whatosever -- sure enough, she was saying same-sex marriages wouldn't be prosecuted, as if somehow that actually makes them legal. AND then she broke the law to investigate criminals. All that and we can't get rid of her because she was elected. It goes both ways.)