Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[ChristianPatriot]

Where exactly does our Govt. get the authority to "require" and "issue" a license for marriage? Answer - they gave it to themselves, just like they gave the President the authority to engage in undeclared foreign wars without Congressional approval. (there was a good reason the Founders did not allow that either). Where did the Govt. get the right to tax your income? I have looked but I can't seem to find that in the Constitution either. IMO any relationship between two people is a matter for the Church - not the Govt. There was a reason the Founders were concerned about the separation of Church and State - and we're seeing why now. The Constitution was written to control and limit the Govt. - not "we the people". The role of SCOTUS is to interpret the law - not to enforce laws that are clearly unConstitutional. - they are the Judicial branch, not the Legislative branch. SCOTUS should be asking "does this law violate the U.S. Constitution?" The Govt. is completely out of control today and they should get out of the "licensing business".

We have a winner folks. Rep'd, QFT, etc.

 

[steveh_131]

Apparently, any woman who wants a license is supposed to go to another county to get. It's the right thing to do. Same for gun owners.

If you're talking about me, two points.

1) I never said it's the right thing to do, I said you should stop wailing like it's the end of the world.

2) Freely traveling is another fundamental, natural right and since the government has monopolized the roadways there is no other way to do it. As with gun ownership, neither should have ever been 'licensed' and the denial of that license is a denial of a natural right.

The denial of a marriage 'certificate' is not.

Again, surely libertarians can recognize a difference between the trampling of a natural right and more arbitrary restrictions on an already arbitrary marital construct.

 

[historian]

It would be nice, for once, to have "republican" judges find penumbras and stuff to turn us back to the real constitution and not perpetuate the course of precedences that lead us to where we are now.

I'm still thinking he did it because he wanted to shine the light on this matter. The activists didn't want her in jail because it is hard to chant that they "Love" when they really love to throw people in jail. He knew that throwing her in jail would make the optics bad on the activists side.

 

[jblomenberg16]

You do realize that you can use that same logic for the clerk.
"most reasonable people (in my opinion of course) would have recognized that it was going no where, and the path of least resistance would have been to just issue the licenses"

You absolutely can. My point is that both sides had plenty of opportunities to find an amicable solution. In the end the court had to decide whose personal beliefs were of higher priority than the others. Just like in the wedding cake fiasco. And just like future cases that will almost certainly include churches and parochial schools.

The irony in this debate on INGO is that when someone is denied business for legally carrying a gun, or sees a voluntary "no guns" sign, we all see to say just go somewhere else. Maybe we should dig in with the same fever this couple did and take it to court.

 

[OutdoorDad]

Can we get this thread merged with the fast food clerk who refused service to the police officer.

I think it would be interesting to see everyone's arguments in parallel.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

How about the clerk refusing to issue LTCH but you were able to travel to another county to do so? No harm no foul?

Honestly, I'm the type of person that would seek out to complete my goal. If my goal were to get a LTCH and the clerk in Lawrence county was, for whatever reason, not to give it to me but the clerk in Orange county would, I would go to Orange county and get my license. But then again, if my goal were to force somebody to do something against her will, I'd be doing what the gaystoppo is doing in Rowan county.

I would have a chance to vote the Lawrence county clerk out of office the next time she were up for re-election. But I know that doesn't jive with the homosexual activists' agenda.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'm still thinking he did it because he wanted to shine the light on this matter. The activists didn't want her in jail because it is hard to chant that they "Love" when they really love to throw people in jail. He knew that throwing her in jail would make the optics bad on the activists side.

I hadn't thought of that. You maybe on to something there.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

What Hill Do We Die On, Then? | The American Conservative

 

[MisterChester]

I'm still thinking he did it because he wanted to shine the light on this matter. The activists didn't want her in jail because it is hard to chant that they "Love" when they really love to throw people in jail. He knew that throwing her in jail would make the optics bad on the activists side.

I hoped that they wouldn't throw her in jail over this, but I also know that she was willing to accept the consequences.

 

[MisterChester]

Honestly, I'm the type of person that would seek out to complete my goal. If my goal were to get a LTCH and the clerk in Lawrence county was, for whatever reason, not to give it to me but the clerk in Orange county would, I would go to Orange county and get my license. But then again, if my goal were to force somebody to do something against her will, I'd be doing what the gaystoppo is doing in Rowan county.

I would have a chance to vote the Lawrence county clerk out of office the next time she were up for re-election. But I know that doesn't jive with the homosexual activists' agenda.

Wouldnt you still think what this hypothetical clerk was doing was wrong though? Something tells me you wouldn't just say "oh well" and forget about it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

This seems reasonable to me. But for those that are seeking to have universal acceptance, it probably won't be good enough.

N.C. Allows Government Employees to Not Do Gay Marriages

 

[indiucky]

Wouldnt you still think what this hypothetical clerk was doing was wrong though? Something tells me you wouldn't just say "oh well" and forget about it.

I know him...He would....

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Wouldnt you still think what this hypothetical clerk was doing was wrong though? Something tells me you wouldn't just say "oh well" and forget about it.

If you think I'm going to go to the TV stations and have a team of cameras follow me in there to demand that, you don't know me very well. Would you? If all you wanted to do is get your LTCH so you could carry on with your life...that's all you want to do...would you create a firestorm such as this?

As I stated elsewhere, I wouldn't just forget about it. I would work to unseat that person during the next election. That's what elections are for. But for a bunch of people that want daddy to fix the car faster, I understand they have to have their temper tantrum satiated (sp?) and nothing but complete satisfaction will do. Do as you wish.

 

[jamil]

Not really all that analogous. If the state of Kentucky voted in homosexual marriage many years ago and Mrs. Davis ran, got elected, and assumed the job last year, then yeah--more like apples to apples. The hypothetical muslim clerk knows when she takes the job she'll issue driver's licenses to women--apples and oranges.

I've always respected your opinion even when we disagree, and this is no different. I need to be frank here. I think you're deflecting. We can go back and forth on the applicability of the analogy, but I'm not going to waste our time. Really, that's the pitfall arguing points with analogies. They're never perfect. They can always be deflected. I do that too. Of course the analogy isn't perfect, but you get the gist. You know what I'm asking. So I'll skip the analogies and get to the crux.

Point 1: This is a government official with the power and authority of her office. She's not a private business owner baking cakes. You're all saying she should be able to use the power of her office to enforce what she believes is God's law. Whose God? Whose religion? Anyone's? Just yours? How broadly are you willing to apply that principle? Is that a matter of principle or is it a matter of personal bias?

Point 2: Yes, the law changed since she took office. Yes, her duties now lawfully include doing what her conscience won't allow. And you guys are saying the fact that a law has changed during her tenure makes the difference. Okay, think about applying that principle across the breadth and depth of government. How far are you willing to go? Same question: principle or bias?

If you're only willing to go as far with those two points as your own religion then what you advocate is not rule of law.

Look, I'm not trying to pin you guys into some kind of hypocrisy shaming like the media and the gaystopo are doing. Hypocrisy is not applicable here. I strongly believe the rational answer favoring rule of law is for her to resign. I just see no other way to dispose this situation and still defend rule of law.

 

[traderdan]

New question....Could a Muslim woman receive a Drivers license in Indiana if she would not remove her veil?

 

[actaeon277]

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Historic day in Rowan County: Marriage licenses finally issued t - WDRB 41 Louisville News

Are we happy now? Or do we still want Mrs. Davis' head on a pike?

The article states that one of the pairs was from the county but it's not clear about the others. I'm going out on a limb when I say I guess it wasn't too much of a hassle to go to a neighboring county to fulfill your wishes.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I've always respected your opinion even when we disagree, and this is no different. I need to be frank here. I think you're deflecting. We can go back and forth on the applicability of the analogy, but I'm not going to waste our time. Really, that's the pitfall arguing points with analogies. They're never perfect. They can always be deflected. I do that too. Of course the analogy isn't perfect, but you get the gist. You know what I'm asking. So I'll skip the analogies and get to the crux.

Point 1: This is a government official with the power and authority of her office. She's not a private business owner baking cakes. You're all saying she should be able to use the power of her office to enforce what she believes is God's law. Whose God? Whose religion? Anyone's? Just yours? How broadly are you willing to apply that principle? Is that a matter of principle or is it a matter of personal bias?

Point 2: Yes, the law changed since she took office. Yes, her duties now lawfully include doing what her conscience won't allow. And you guys are saying the fact that a law has changed during her tenure makes the difference. Okay, think about applying that principle across the breadth and depth of government. How far are you willing to go? Same question: principle or bias?

If you're only willing to go as far with those two points as your own religion then what you advocate is not rule of law.

Look, I'm not trying to pin you guys into some kind of hypocrisy shaming like the media and the gaystopo are doing. Hypocrisy is not applicable here. I strongly believe the rational answer favoring rule of law is for her to resign. I just see no other way to dispose this situation and still defend rule of law.

Frankly, I bridle at the idea that the decision that the SCOTUS handed down that caused us to arrive at this point is the rule of law. It's all real law-like. I'm sure all the approprate forms were filled out, in triplicate to make it official. But I reject it. I am one of the few on this site and, quite frankly, among my friends on Facebook, that think so. So be it. I'm willing to take the slings and arrows of the internet.

I'm for the rule of law. But immoral laws and laws repugnant to the Constitution are not just laws. But what we're entering into is a time where religious tests must be passed prior to being able to hold jobs. There's already calls for judges to be considered ineligible if they do not believe in homosexual marriage. But hey--it's all legal.

 

[DarkRose]

You, and many others of her supporters, seem to think this all about a gay thing. She also denied licenses to straight citizens, as well (hence why she is being sued by two straight couples, too). The people involved in this on the litigants side aren't shoving anything on the Commonwealth of KY. They are demanding their Rights be upheld and you would deny them that. Why should they have to go to another county to accommodate this woman and her iron age superstitions? She, and others like her need to do their damned jobs or resign. She swore an oath, (probably before her god) to do her job and she refuses to do it. Resign or rot in jail, it all falls on her shoulders. No-one else's.

Admittedly I haven't followed the whole thread, but went back a few pages and hadn't seen this brought up...

The lady refused to issue license on her religious principles (assuming Christian, though I haven't seen it specified...)

However she's on her 4th (I believe) marriage, and got pregnant by her 3rd husband while she was still married to her 1st husband, husband #2 adopted the child... What is she up to now, 4 stonings? (three divorces and one adultry...)

Forget the principles, what about the hypocrisy?

 

[DarkRose]

This seems reasonable to me. But for those that are seeking to have universal acceptance, it probably won't be good enough.

N.C. Allows Government Employees to Not Do Gay Marriages

I can actually see that as a reasonable compromise... I'm one of the minority here who believe that religion has no place in government, but from what I can tell from this article, citizens can still get their license in their own locality/municipality, and Gov't employees can still wash their hands of it and say "I didn't sign that".

However... What happens (hypothetically speaking) if you're in a small municipality where all qualified officials object? I'd still say citizens should not have to go to a different locale just to get a license that is now legal.

People may object, but legal is legal, and not is not. Not much different than a discussion/argument I had with a relative about NFA Trusts, their opinion was "it's just a way to skirt the laws".

Well, iffin' it is, or iffin' it ain't, legal is legal.

Hope that made sense, long/holiday weekends get my sleep schedule ALL screwed up...