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
You were born into an epic but temporal contest between the forces of good and those of evil. I'm not "judging" you guys in a condemning way whatsoever but rather encouraging you to reach for your potential which I believe is higher than you realize. It's certainly higher than the opposition you encounter on CC. Love Crossnote, you, and the rest of the solid conservative and independent Christians on here. God bless you guys. 
N
This is where the separation of church and state in the Constitution comes into play. The issue, as I see it, is that you and many others cannot understand the meaning of that. It's both sides of the political aisle that seem to be confused.
If you don't want homosexuals to get married...don't marry them in church. Get me? If the government wants to do it, they can, as per the Constitution.
Honestly, I think it is time that the institution is separated from the government. The issues are how and when to divorce. How assets are divided. How children will be cared for, who pays and how much. The last is the biggest one in my mind. And, if you are telling the truth about not caring what homosexuals do, I don't see an issue with any of this.
Can the church handle these legal matters and how would they? Who would pay for the services churches render?
On the other hand, yes, I know they are not supposed to get married and that what they are doing is sinful and disgusts God. I'm not that naive. What I am doing is compartmentalizing the secular and the religious worlds. I believe what you are telling me is, that is wrong. I can live with being wrong, but I'd like to hear an argument that allows freedom of religion without it being state or U.S. government sponsored. Because, that's what I believe you and others are suggesting.
If that is what you are suggesting, then do we ignore the Constitution as many of our government officials seem to have done? How are we any better then they?
I'll tell you, twenty years ago, I would never have had this opinion. I was pretty much like many of you here. It was black and white for me. Time, life experiences, and a broadening of my knowledge of homosexuality have forced change in my opinions. The latest things I've read are that the proclivity for homosexuality is within one's genes. The newest caveat is that scientists believe that when that is present, if the child's life experiences lean a certain way they will be practicing homosexuals as adults.
I wish I could point to a specific study, but I do not have one to post. I did some reading and heard the opinions of a geneticist who has his doctorate. That was good enough for me. So, I'm pretty torn on this when we look at life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't have the legal right to say something won't make them happy. As long as they are not hurting anyone, I don't see an issue.
That position does not include raising children. I don't know enough about that and only have the opinion that it is a bad idea. Though, if someone has the proclivity toward homosexuality, the only thing that might have a chance at stopping that is shame. I don't like shaming anyone. I don't think it is what we should be doing.
So, yes, I am a little stuck. How to handle the separation of church and state and be charitable to all while not sinning by sitting on a fence is quite difficult, and why I am seemingly giving some here such a hard time. Notice, I mainly addressed on person I've told I respect. I think many here have chosen to side with God's law, while forgetting that Christ set the example of how to live. Meaning, as far as I know, he didn't stop anyone from sinning, just invited them to join him and be saved. Make sense?
Neither did He rail against the government, but chose to live His life within the law. Remember, He was not subversive, but railed against the leaders of the Jewish church. Even if you say He rebuked Herod, I say that Herod was the king, supposedly in the line of David, which pretty much makes him the leader of the church, as well. Herod built the temple. Our government does not build churches, and is not supposed to build them. They would have to build for all and tell them what to teach.
So, these are my issues. Struggling, sinful Christian? Okay, I can live with that. Hoping to learn and be enlightened as to why I am wrong? Yes. Asking tough questions? You better believe I will. I think you and a few others can handle the tough questions. Am I wrong?
And, you know what? This thread was about a woman who decided not to do her job at the threat of prison. She stood by her beliefs. What happened? They let her go, but now, when a Muslim is elected and refuses to give your grandson or granddaughter a marriage license due to their beliefs, what happens? Maybe I am too worried about something in the future, but isn't that what everyone of us is doing, worrying about how to best follow God's laws?
I think the government solved it by allowing those who would sign the marriage licenses to do so without Kim's signature present. She is back at work. The issue present then, has been solved; at least temporarily anyway.
In conclusion, I just want to say that if I did hurt anyone's feelings, I am sorry. My intention was not to lead anyone to sin.
If you don't want homosexuals to get married...don't marry them in church. Get me? If the government wants to do it, they can, as per the Constitution.
Honestly, I think it is time that the institution is separated from the government. The issues are how and when to divorce. How assets are divided. How children will be cared for, who pays and how much. The last is the biggest one in my mind. And, if you are telling the truth about not caring what homosexuals do, I don't see an issue with any of this.
Can the church handle these legal matters and how would they? Who would pay for the services churches render?
On the other hand, yes, I know they are not supposed to get married and that what they are doing is sinful and disgusts God. I'm not that naive. What I am doing is compartmentalizing the secular and the religious worlds. I believe what you are telling me is, that is wrong. I can live with being wrong, but I'd like to hear an argument that allows freedom of religion without it being state or U.S. government sponsored. Because, that's what I believe you and others are suggesting.
If that is what you are suggesting, then do we ignore the Constitution as many of our government officials seem to have done? How are we any better then they?
I'll tell you, twenty years ago, I would never have had this opinion. I was pretty much like many of you here. It was black and white for me. Time, life experiences, and a broadening of my knowledge of homosexuality have forced change in my opinions. The latest things I've read are that the proclivity for homosexuality is within one's genes. The newest caveat is that scientists believe that when that is present, if the child's life experiences lean a certain way they will be practicing homosexuals as adults.
I wish I could point to a specific study, but I do not have one to post. I did some reading and heard the opinions of a geneticist who has his doctorate. That was good enough for me. So, I'm pretty torn on this when we look at life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't have the legal right to say something won't make them happy. As long as they are not hurting anyone, I don't see an issue.
That position does not include raising children. I don't know enough about that and only have the opinion that it is a bad idea. Though, if someone has the proclivity toward homosexuality, the only thing that might have a chance at stopping that is shame. I don't like shaming anyone. I don't think it is what we should be doing.
So, yes, I am a little stuck. How to handle the separation of church and state and be charitable to all while not sinning by sitting on a fence is quite difficult, and why I am seemingly giving some here such a hard time. Notice, I mainly addressed on person I've told I respect. I think many here have chosen to side with God's law, while forgetting that Christ set the example of how to live. Meaning, as far as I know, he didn't stop anyone from sinning, just invited them to join him and be saved. Make sense?
Neither did He rail against the government, but chose to live His life within the law. Remember, He was not subversive, but railed against the leaders of the Jewish church. Even if you say He rebuked Herod, I say that Herod was the king, supposedly in the line of David, which pretty much makes him the leader of the church, as well. Herod built the temple. Our government does not build churches, and is not supposed to build them. They would have to build for all and tell them what to teach.
So, these are my issues. Struggling, sinful Christian? Okay, I can live with that. Hoping to learn and be enlightened as to why I am wrong? Yes. Asking tough questions? You better believe I will. I think you and a few others can handle the tough questions. Am I wrong?
And, you know what? This thread was about a woman who decided not to do her job at the threat of prison. She stood by her beliefs. What happened? They let her go, but now, when a Muslim is elected and refuses to give your grandson or granddaughter a marriage license due to their beliefs, what happens? Maybe I am too worried about something in the future, but isn't that what everyone of us is doing, worrying about how to best follow God's laws?
I think the government solved it by allowing those who would sign the marriage licenses to do so without Kim's signature present. She is back at work. The issue present then, has been solved; at least temporarily anyway.
In conclusion, I just want to say that if I did hurt anyone's feelings, I am sorry. My intention was not to lead anyone to sin.
M
The concept of separation of church and state in no way was intended to restrict moral Christian citizens from shaping a healthy moral society that reflect their own values. As citizens all of us have every right to use our influence and moral standards to shape our society. You have been deceived by left wing propaganda, that would make you believe that only the ungodly and immoral have the right to shape our society according to their beliefs...that's insane and its not what the constitution says, in fact its just the opposite.
M
That's you opinion ...and clearly most Americans do hold conservative values and clearly would not have ever voted for this perversion of marriage ...thats why these judges took it upon themselves to make law...just as they took it upon themselves to promote the killing of babies. If you look at the current political situation ...its clear that in fact the conservative groups are stronger and growing in strength.... So talk all you want ...we will see in the next election, I guess we will see where folks are at.
A New Twist...
+ + Kim Davis Files Brief Challenging the Expanded Injunction.
On Wednesday, Liberty Counsel filed a brief in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the district court had no authority to expand its original injunction against Kim Davis after she filed an appeal of that injunction. While the original Injunction against Kim was on appeal, and without any notice or briefing, at the contempt hearing the lower court expanded the Injunction beyond the named plaintiffs to include the entire world! The Plaintiffs did not originally request a class-wide injunction and the district court did not originally grant a class-wide injunction. The Plaintiffs even agreed to stay any class-based proceedings while Davis' appeal was decided. However, on September 3, 2015, the district court granted class-wide relief without notice and significantly expanded the scope of its original injunction against Kim Davis. The practical effect of this move is that the Injunction applies to anyone in the world who might seek a license at any time in the future. We believe the expanded Injunction violated due process. It is a basic principle of federal court authority that district courts cannot expand or enlarge injunction orders that are on appeal. Orders entered without authority are null and void.
+ + Kim Davis Files Brief Challenging the Expanded Injunction.
On Wednesday, Liberty Counsel filed a brief in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the district court had no authority to expand its original injunction against Kim Davis after she filed an appeal of that injunction. While the original Injunction against Kim was on appeal, and without any notice or briefing, at the contempt hearing the lower court expanded the Injunction beyond the named plaintiffs to include the entire world! The Plaintiffs did not originally request a class-wide injunction and the district court did not originally grant a class-wide injunction. The Plaintiffs even agreed to stay any class-based proceedings while Davis' appeal was decided. However, on September 3, 2015, the district court granted class-wide relief without notice and significantly expanded the scope of its original injunction against Kim Davis. The practical effect of this move is that the Injunction applies to anyone in the world who might seek a license at any time in the future. We believe the expanded Injunction violated due process. It is a basic principle of federal court authority that district courts cannot expand or enlarge injunction orders that are on appeal. Orders entered without authority are null and void.
The attacks keep coming...
From the desk of: Mathew Staver,Founder and Chairman Liberty CounselIn case you missed my earlier message, we need your immediate help.American Christians are being aggressively targeted by the Left in ways unimaginable just a few short years ago. Left unchecked in the coming months, our nation, our government, our judicial system, our culture, and our way of life will be radically changed – fundamentally transformed, to use Barack Obama's phrase – unless we are prepared to aggressively meet the challenges that lay ahead.Please see my message below about an especially urgent need —We are under attack. In all of our years of service, we at Liberty Counsel have never experienced the level of threats of violence and depth of hatred we have received from so-called "tolerant Leftists" since we began our defense of Kim Davis and our Push For Liberty national campaign. Anita and I have been personally threatened. Yet, like Kim, we remain undeterred in our stand.As we've seen so clearly in recent confrontations, our adversaries are aggressive, have deep pockets, and an insatiable commitment to radicalize our culture. And, as I have also shared with you, America's civil servants, business leaders, and ministry workers are being barraged with unprecedented assaults on their religious liberties. Some have also received death threats, assaults on their character, and malicious lies affecting their business' reputation and revenue.That's why we cannot shrink back. We cannot afford to lose this battle. Right now, the Liberty Counsel legal team is inundated with requests for legal aid. These assaults are the very issues Liberty Counsel was raised to meet and overcome - and we do so in courtrooms and the courts of public opinion across our nation. We cannot take every potential client requesting our help. I'm sure you can appreciate the rigorously high standard our lawsuits must have when challenging the Obama administration, the Department of Justice, the IRS, the ACLU, state and local governments and other adversaries.
From the desk of: Mathew Staver,Founder and Chairman Liberty CounselIn case you missed my earlier message, we need your immediate help.American Christians are being aggressively targeted by the Left in ways unimaginable just a few short years ago. Left unchecked in the coming months, our nation, our government, our judicial system, our culture, and our way of life will be radically changed – fundamentally transformed, to use Barack Obama's phrase – unless we are prepared to aggressively meet the challenges that lay ahead.Please see my message below about an especially urgent need —We are under attack. In all of our years of service, we at Liberty Counsel have never experienced the level of threats of violence and depth of hatred we have received from so-called "tolerant Leftists" since we began our defense of Kim Davis and our Push For Liberty national campaign. Anita and I have been personally threatened. Yet, like Kim, we remain undeterred in our stand.As we've seen so clearly in recent confrontations, our adversaries are aggressive, have deep pockets, and an insatiable commitment to radicalize our culture. And, as I have also shared with you, America's civil servants, business leaders, and ministry workers are being barraged with unprecedented assaults on their religious liberties. Some have also received death threats, assaults on their character, and malicious lies affecting their business' reputation and revenue.That's why we cannot shrink back. We cannot afford to lose this battle. Right now, the Liberty Counsel legal team is inundated with requests for legal aid. These assaults are the very issues Liberty Counsel was raised to meet and overcome - and we do so in courtrooms and the courts of public opinion across our nation. We cannot take every potential client requesting our help. I'm sure you can appreciate the rigorously high standard our lawsuits must have when challenging the Obama administration, the Department of Justice, the IRS, the ACLU, state and local governments and other adversaries.
The word deviant just means that something differs from a tradition or from an established cultural norm. Deviance is nonconformity to societal norms, but since societal norms morph and change over time, what's deviant one century may not be deviant the next. So, drawing illustrations of cultural issues using "normality" as a border, and railing against everything that's outside that border, is a flimsy way to view legislating in the first place. It's considered by most Japanese people "deviant" for teenage girls to wear brightly coloured make-up, because Japanese culture is so much about humility -- drawing attention to oneself is shameful. But I wouldn't say that Harajuku girls are doing any real damage to anybody.
The more worrying issue is that you seem to think that your individual rights and individual freedoms extend your authority beyond your individual choice -- they don't. You're allowed to be whatever you like, providing it doesn't hurt or inflict physical violation upon anybody else. That's the idea of secular law in a nutshell. That's why Harijuku girls can continue being Harijuku girls and gay people can continue being gay people. We all have our personal freedoms. Gay folks utilizing their personal freedoms and getting married, does not, and cannot, due to the nature of rights themselves, hurt you or your rights, your personal freedoms or your ability to make your own individual choices. It is important for you, and for I, not to have legal authority over someone else's personal decisions. I don't want some other civilian citizen to have legal authority over mine. The legal entities of the countries we live in have that authority over you, I, and anyone else, and they utilize that authority to ensure that we can live your lives according to our own beliefs, under the binding condition that we each allow others that same privilege, within reason. If any of us do not allow others that privilege within reason (if you for instance attempt to coerce or force another person to live a straight life against their own will) and we decide to inflict harm, infringe rights, or limit personal freedoms, we inevitably break the law.
You can live your life as a Christian who daily follows God's laws, and another individual in the United States can choose to live their life as an atheist gay person if they so wish. That they live their lives as such does not harm you, and nor does that you live your life as such, harm them.
It is not anybody's place to dictate the personal, individual, consensual adult choices that people might make for themselves. If two people who are gay are above the age of consent and decide mutually to date, and eventually marry in a state or private wedding ceremony (which, by the way, no church or private institution has any obligation to perform), well, that does you and I absolutely no harm whatsoever. It is allowed because it does not hurt anybody, least of all us -- two foreign parties to that ceremony -- in any tangible, legislatable way.
The more worrying issue is that you seem to think that your individual rights and individual freedoms extend your authority beyond your individual choice -- they don't. You're allowed to be whatever you like, providing it doesn't hurt or inflict physical violation upon anybody else. That's the idea of secular law in a nutshell. That's why Harijuku girls can continue being Harijuku girls and gay people can continue being gay people. We all have our personal freedoms. Gay folks utilizing their personal freedoms and getting married, does not, and cannot, due to the nature of rights themselves, hurt you or your rights, your personal freedoms or your ability to make your own individual choices. It is important for you, and for I, not to have legal authority over someone else's personal decisions. I don't want some other civilian citizen to have legal authority over mine. The legal entities of the countries we live in have that authority over you, I, and anyone else, and they utilize that authority to ensure that we can live your lives according to our own beliefs, under the binding condition that we each allow others that same privilege, within reason. If any of us do not allow others that privilege within reason (if you for instance attempt to coerce or force another person to live a straight life against their own will) and we decide to inflict harm, infringe rights, or limit personal freedoms, we inevitably break the law.
You can live your life as a Christian who daily follows God's laws, and another individual in the United States can choose to live their life as an atheist gay person if they so wish. That they live their lives as such does not harm you, and nor does that you live your life as such, harm them.
It is not anybody's place to dictate the personal, individual, consensual adult choices that people might make for themselves. If two people who are gay are above the age of consent and decide mutually to date, and eventually marry in a state or private wedding ceremony (which, by the way, no church or private institution has any obligation to perform), well, that does you and I absolutely no harm whatsoever. It is allowed because it does not hurt anybody, least of all us -- two foreign parties to that ceremony -- in any tangible, legislatable way.
B
This is where the separation of church and state in the Constitution comes into play. The issue, as I see it, is that you and many others cannot understand the meaning of that. It's both sides of the political aisle that seem to be confused.
If you don't want homosexuals to get married...don't marry them in church. Get me? If the government wants to do it, they can, as per the Constitution.
Honestly, I think it is time that the institution is separated from the government. The issues are how and when to divorce. How assets are divided. How children will be cared for, who pays and how much. The last is the biggest one in my mind. And, if you are telling the truth about not caring what homosexuals do, I don't see an issue with any of this.
I actually think MANY issues are coming that will require those who love the lord to separate themselves ENTIRELY from the Patriotism that has the double yoked in this country. Marriage was never intended to be a "government licensed", used to be a bible and witnesses recorded thereof was adequate, licensure was to prevent mixed race marriages and then used to produce the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate family matters and divorces.
Can the church handle these legal matters and how would they? Who would pay for the services churches render? YES, but that would mean PEOPLE/ELDERS would have to get involved and that takes effort, is unpleasant, and NOBODY WANTS TO WORK THAT HARD!
On the other hand, yes, I know they are not supposed to get married and that what they are doing is sinful and disgusts God. I'm not that naive. What I am doing is compartmentalizing the secular and the religious worlds. I believe what you are telling me is, that is wrong. I can live with being wrong, but I'd like to hear an argument that allows freedom of religion without it being state or U.S. government sponsored. Because, that's what I believe you and others are suggesting.
If that is what you are suggesting, then do we ignore the Constitution as many of our government officials seem to have done? How are we any better then they?
I'll tell you, twenty years ago, I would never have had this opinion. I was pretty much like many of you here. It was black and white for me. Time, life experiences, and a broadening of my knowledge of homosexuality have forced change in my opinions. The latest things I've read are that the proclivity for homosexuality is within one's genes. The newest caveat is that scientists believe that when that is present, if the child's life experiences lean a certain way they will be practicing homosexuals as adults. YA lost me there... sorry. there are several threads available where ex-homosexuals speak of deliverance and freedom in Christ and dissect the Gay-agenda via the scripture. I am for that... not Science with an agenda. But I can agree... 20 years ago I sure didn't think like I do now either...PTL!
I wish I could point to a specific study, but I do not have one to post. I did some reading and heard the opinions of a geneticist who has his doctorate. That was good enough for me. So, I'm pretty torn on this when we look at life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't have the legal right to say something won't make them happy. As long as they are not hurting anyone, I don't see an issue. Well the scripture says that people will be lovers of SELF more than lovers of God and that INCLUDES reprobates... and they are hurting themselves ultimately... and their neighbors... it is bad for SOCIETY says GOD. But does that mean I force them to STOP? No, but I can pray for and evangelize them.
That position does not include raising children. Well GOOD, we can agree here! I don't know enough about that and only have the opinion that it is a bad idea. Though, if someone has the proclivity toward homosexuality, the only thing that might have a chance at stopping that is shame. I don't like shaming anyone. I don't think it is what we should be doing. Some sins ARE shameful... bleive God and quit compromising... what's next... don't shame the pedophile or bestiality?
So, yes, I am a little stuck. I can see that, thank you for being honest and transparent. please keep studying. Dumpt the compromise and you will move FORWARD in understanding. How to handle the separation of church and state and be charitable to all while not sinning by sitting on a fence is quite difficult, and why I am seemingly giving some here such a hard time. Notice, I mainly addressed on person I've told I respect. I think many here have chosen to side with God's law, while forgetting that Christ set the example of how to live. Meaning, as far as I know, he didn't stop anyone from sinning, just invited them to join him and be saved. Make sense? You don't have to sit on the fence... and riding the fence is going to cuase PROBLEMS... like the ones you are having now.
Sorry I had to cut it short... but that is my comments to that point. Thank you again for your transparency in these matters!
If you don't want homosexuals to get married...don't marry them in church. Get me? If the government wants to do it, they can, as per the Constitution.
Honestly, I think it is time that the institution is separated from the government. The issues are how and when to divorce. How assets are divided. How children will be cared for, who pays and how much. The last is the biggest one in my mind. And, if you are telling the truth about not caring what homosexuals do, I don't see an issue with any of this.
I actually think MANY issues are coming that will require those who love the lord to separate themselves ENTIRELY from the Patriotism that has the double yoked in this country. Marriage was never intended to be a "government licensed", used to be a bible and witnesses recorded thereof was adequate, licensure was to prevent mixed race marriages and then used to produce the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate family matters and divorces.
Can the church handle these legal matters and how would they? Who would pay for the services churches render? YES, but that would mean PEOPLE/ELDERS would have to get involved and that takes effort, is unpleasant, and NOBODY WANTS TO WORK THAT HARD!
On the other hand, yes, I know they are not supposed to get married and that what they are doing is sinful and disgusts God. I'm not that naive. What I am doing is compartmentalizing the secular and the religious worlds. I believe what you are telling me is, that is wrong. I can live with being wrong, but I'd like to hear an argument that allows freedom of religion without it being state or U.S. government sponsored. Because, that's what I believe you and others are suggesting.
If that is what you are suggesting, then do we ignore the Constitution as many of our government officials seem to have done? How are we any better then they?
I'll tell you, twenty years ago, I would never have had this opinion. I was pretty much like many of you here. It was black and white for me. Time, life experiences, and a broadening of my knowledge of homosexuality have forced change in my opinions. The latest things I've read are that the proclivity for homosexuality is within one's genes. The newest caveat is that scientists believe that when that is present, if the child's life experiences lean a certain way they will be practicing homosexuals as adults. YA lost me there... sorry. there are several threads available where ex-homosexuals speak of deliverance and freedom in Christ and dissect the Gay-agenda via the scripture. I am for that... not Science with an agenda. But I can agree... 20 years ago I sure didn't think like I do now either...PTL!
I wish I could point to a specific study, but I do not have one to post. I did some reading and heard the opinions of a geneticist who has his doctorate. That was good enough for me. So, I'm pretty torn on this when we look at life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't have the legal right to say something won't make them happy. As long as they are not hurting anyone, I don't see an issue. Well the scripture says that people will be lovers of SELF more than lovers of God and that INCLUDES reprobates... and they are hurting themselves ultimately... and their neighbors... it is bad for SOCIETY says GOD. But does that mean I force them to STOP? No, but I can pray for and evangelize them.
That position does not include raising children. Well GOOD, we can agree here! I don't know enough about that and only have the opinion that it is a bad idea. Though, if someone has the proclivity toward homosexuality, the only thing that might have a chance at stopping that is shame. I don't like shaming anyone. I don't think it is what we should be doing. Some sins ARE shameful... bleive God and quit compromising... what's next... don't shame the pedophile or bestiality?
So, yes, I am a little stuck. I can see that, thank you for being honest and transparent. please keep studying. Dumpt the compromise and you will move FORWARD in understanding. How to handle the separation of church and state and be charitable to all while not sinning by sitting on a fence is quite difficult, and why I am seemingly giving some here such a hard time. Notice, I mainly addressed on person I've told I respect. I think many here have chosen to side with God's law, while forgetting that Christ set the example of how to live. Meaning, as far as I know, he didn't stop anyone from sinning, just invited them to join him and be saved. Make sense? You don't have to sit on the fence... and riding the fence is going to cuase PROBLEMS
... like the ones you are having now.Sorry I had to cut it short... but that is my comments to that point. Thank you again for your transparency in these matters!
Don't look like this one is going away too soon. The ACLU is on the heels of Kim Davis now.
(Liberty Counsel Update)
Late yesterday, Kim Davis was the target in a new ACLU court filing, asking the court to hold Kim in contempt again. The ACLU asserts that the licenses are "questionable" and impose "humiliation and stigma" on the homosexual couples.
Kim Davis has made a good faith effort to comply with the court's order and has not prevented the issuance of marriage licenses by Deputy Clerks. These licenses do not have Kim's name or title on them, but instead say, "pursuant to federal court order." The Governor said last Monday the licenses were valid. District Judge David Bunning also said licenses issued while she was in jail without her name were valid.
+ + The ACLU's action is an effort to make an example of Kim Davis.
Kim Davis adhered to Kentucky law while standing for her First Amendment right to religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
(Liberty Counsel Update)
The American Civil Liberty Union's motion to again hold Kim Davis in contempt reveals that their interest is not their clients' license but rather a marriage license bearing the name of Kim Davis. They want her scalp to hang on the wall as a trophy!
Late yesterday, Kim Davis was the target in a new ACLU court filing, asking the court to hold Kim in contempt again. The ACLU asserts that the licenses are "questionable" and impose "humiliation and stigma" on the homosexual couples.
Kim Davis has made a good faith effort to comply with the court's order and has not prevented the issuance of marriage licenses by Deputy Clerks. These licenses do not have Kim's name or title on them, but instead say, "pursuant to federal court order." The Governor said last Monday the licenses were valid. District Judge David Bunning also said licenses issued while she was in jail without her name were valid.
In lifting the contempt sanction on September 8, Judge Bunning said he was "satisfied that the Rowan County Clerk's Office is fulfilling its obligation to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples," while pointing out that the marriage licenses were altered to remove Kim Davis's name.
On September 14, 2015, Gov. Steve Beshear stated that he was "confident and satisfied that the licenses that were issued last week (and) this morning substantially comply with the law in Kentucky...And they're going to be recognized as valid in the Commonwealth."
Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway agrees. His spokeswoman told the Associated Press that he had "reviewed marriage licenses issued in Rowan County" and "believes that those issued while clerk Kim Davis was in jail and the one issued so far since her return to work are valid."
On September 14, 2015, Gov. Steve Beshear stated that he was "confident and satisfied that the licenses that were issued last week (and) this morning substantially comply with the law in Kentucky...And they're going to be recognized as valid in the Commonwealth."
Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway agrees. His spokeswoman told the Associated Press that he had "reviewed marriage licenses issued in Rowan County" and "believes that those issued while clerk Kim Davis was in jail and the one issued so far since her return to work are valid."
+ + The ACLU's action is an effort to make an example of Kim Davis.
Kim Davis adhered to Kentucky law while standing for her First Amendment right to religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
So you would approve an equality act that would say a church must have an equal amount of other faiths teaching their Sunday School class?
Since after all "they wouldn't be under attack just because others have gained the right they have already had".
Since after all "they wouldn't be under attack just because others have gained the right they have already had".