Kentucky court clerk....

[Dale00]

Seems to many it most often depends on which evil people huh? After all "some animals...."

Sorry it takes me time to think though my responses so my replies are often a bit out of synch.

One person's "evil person tormenting others" can be quite a subjective judgement. In general such language blinds a person from being able to understand the other side's point of view and the reasons for it.

 

[Billybob]

Past vs present - some differences would include the present enormous size of the federal government and the potential for governmental intrusion into people's lives and the increasing level of dependency on government instead of self, family, God and community. But yes, history is rife with corruption and abuses of people. Currently too the culture is transitioning in many ways, many of which are negative. We seem to have lost our shared core beliefs and there are growing divisions. When one group attempts to dictate to other groups, push back can be increasingly expected. That's my initial take on your point and why the present differs from the past.

A cherry is a cherry, regardless of when you pick it, "There is nothing new under the sun".

 

[Billybob]

Sorry it takes me time to think though my responses so my replies are often a bit out of synch.

One person's "evil person tormenting others" can be quite a subjective judgement. In general such language blind's a person from being able to understand the other side's point of view and the reasons for it.

Nothing to be sorry about, the timing of your replies doesn't matter, I'll read them when they get here.
Yes torment can be subjective as we see, in this case one person felt tormented to have to sign(or even let others)papers letting people do something she didn't like or agree with and justified it by claiming religion while cherry picking sins. Other people felt torment because they couldn't have the same rights that others do, who suffered the greater injury or restriction on their real life and freedom as opposed to perceptions?
And I do understand the clerks point of view and her reasons for it. But I cannot respect it because again by cherry picking she has raised herself to be worthy to be judge or even God over others which the scriptures she relies on says not to do, she is a hypocrite same as Jesus said the Pharisees were. At no time was it said she couldn't have her freedom of religion, conscience, or even opinion, just that she couldn't impose it on others and break the law while enjoying the privilege and using the power of a good Gov. job to do it.

 

[Shootin 4 Fun]

Torment and tormenting people is generally bad.

Then why are you supporting this woman? Are you just upset that I connected her evil actions to her Christianity?

 

[Defnestor]

Rotsa ruck raggy, that could bring up Reagan, the Katrina gun grab, or Lautenberg Amendment instead of the selective blaming many here seem to prefer.

That's at least the second time in this thread someone has advocated jailing Reagan. I hate to tell you folks, but if you want to lock up Reagan, you're going to need more than a court order. Like a backhoe and a truck.

 

[Glocktogo]

we live in a representative republic. it has many similarities with a democracy but one major difference is our privilege to VOTE on every elected office.in a democracy you vote on a party and then your representation is appointed.

Wrong, we live in a Constitutional Republic. The difference is critical.

Also, voting is a right, not a privilege.

 

[TenBears]

I read this and thought it was interesting.


So if Congress by law has reserved to the states the right to define marriage, what has the state of Kentucky done about it? The people of Kentucky, according to the prescribed method outlined in its state constitution, have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, period. Kentuckians enacted their marriage amendment in 2004 with an overwhelming 75% of the vote.

Here’s how the Kentucky constitution reads:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

Thus, in Kentucky, according to the rule of law, marriage licenses can only permissibly be extended to couples consisting of one man and one woman. A “marriage” between two people of the same sex is “not valid or recognized.”

Thus Kim Davis would actually be breaking the law and violating the constitution of the state of Kentucky by issuing same-sex licenses.

Bottom line: Kim Davis is the only one in this sorry saga who is following the law and the Constitution.

 

[Dale00]

S4F - Your statement is upsetting.

I for one have no concern if she suffers greatly, she is intentionally and maliciously tormenting others. Sometimes we call people like that "evil" or "monsters", in her case we call her a Christian.

It does read as anti-Christian to me. If you did not mean it to be read that way then there are other wordings that should have been used.

 

[Billybob]

That's at least the second time in this thread someone has advocated jailing Reagan. I hate to tell you folks, but if you want to lock up Reagan, you're going to need more than a court order. Like a backhoe and a truck.

Sorry if that came out wrong, my point was any discussion of Gov. 2 Amendment violations would easily include him. And sometimes it seems a backhoe wouldn't be needed since many seem to be waiting for his second coming.

2nd. Amendment rights for everyone, except those ***** over there just like the German guy and some others said huh? Just like most here agree with in some ways.

http://blog.independent.org/2013/09/18/the-panthers-were-right-and-reagan-was-wrong-on-gun-control/

 

[Hobbes]

I read this and thought it was interesting.


So if Congress by law has reserved to the states the right to define marriage, what has the state of Kentucky done about it? The people of Kentucky, according to the prescribed method outlined in its state constitution, have defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, period. Kentuckians enacted their marriage amendment in 2004 with an overwhelming 75% of the vote.

Here’s how the Kentucky constitution reads:

Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.

Thus, in Kentucky, according to the rule of law, marriage licenses can only permissibly be extended to couples consisting of one man and one woman. A “marriage” between two people of the same sex is “not valid or recognized.”

Thus Kim Davis would actually be breaking the law and violating the constitution of the state of Kentucky by issuing same-sex licenses.

Bottom line: Kim Davis is the only one in this sorry saga who is following the law and the Constitution.

Individual rights are inherited from God, Not government, and unanaliable.
Am I wrong?