[Motley]

Although I disagree with Davis, it's hard not to respect someone standing up for what they believe in and using their freedom of protest in such a way. If she were a private business owner I'd say she is in the right, but she is not a regular citizen. She has a job to do and is being paid to do it, and she accepted this job knowing she has to apply the law to everyone. Not just who she wants to pick and choose. Be interesting to see a non christian get voted into a similar position in the future and pick and choose who they want to serve licenses to of any kind.

[TheRealThing]

Although I disagree with Davis, it's hard not to respect someone standing up for what they believe in and using their freedom of protest in such a way. If she were a private business owner I'd say she is in the right, but she is not a regular citizen. She has a job to do and is being paid to do it, and she accepted this job knowing she has to apply the law to everyone. Not just who she wants to pick and choose. Be interesting to see a non christian get voted into a similar position in the future and pick and choose who they want to serve licenses to of any kind.

Right, she is to be commended. When you mentioned picking and choosing I could not help but think of how the US backed out of her NATO responsibilities by cancelling the Missile Defense Shield slated to be constructed in Poland. Then there was the arbitrary initialization of the Dream Act, while Police and ICE agents are being told to stand down in the face of anarchy.

I thought Granny Bear's excerpt from Mike Huckabee and Harry Rex's very enlightening post with regard to the law were pertinent to this discussion. If there is no enacted law on homosexual marriage, how can Kim Davis enforce it? All the SC ruling said was that homosexuals can not be discriminated against. They did not strike down state sovereignty on the matter so, what was the rush all about in Kentucky anyway? Are we a people who depend on the workings of our legislature, or are we just going to roll up the sidewalks and let judges order us to do things now?

[RunItUpTheGut]

Whitley, Rowan and Casey are the three counties involved. I saw that on the news last night.

I'm sure they will continue to move right on down here. Back when the two sides did there little protesting over a 1000 supporters of the clerk showed up. I think I seen about 6 or 7 gays waving rainbows and you could obviously tell they either weren't from here or don't go out in public if they are.
I'm sure they will find some couple from louisville to come down and sue. I do know for a fact that Whitley is different than Rowan if they are also denying marriage liscenses because I know Whitley is still issuing regular liscenses. The last I heard was they didn't have the new forms so they could not issue gay marriage liscenses and they had no intention of ordering new ones. I'm curious to see how that shakes out.
Davis defense is she wasn't issuing liscenses to anyone therefore she wasn't discriminating against any particular group.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Although I disagree with Davis, it's hard not to respect someone standing up for what they believe in and using their freedom of protest in such a way. If she were a private business owner I'd say she is in the right, but she is not a regular citizen. She has a job to do and is being paid to do it, and she accepted this job knowing she has to apply the law to everyone. Not just who she wants to pick and choose. Be interesting to see a non christian get voted into a similar position in the future and pick and choose who they want to serve licenses to of any kind.

Motley is actually partially correct in his analysis. Davis cannot be forced to condone homosexual marriage as an individual citizen- at least, not yet. However, as an elected official who took an oath of office to follow the law, she has no real choice but to issue licenses or to resign. Oh, she can go to jail but it accomplishes nothing because her office is issuing the licenses in her absence.

On the other hand, Obama, unfortunately another elected official, took an oath to follow the law. He has not done so by his picking and choosing of what immigration laws are to be enforced and what ones are not to be enforced. There are many other examples but immigration laws make the point well.

Why is Davis punished and Obama is left unopposed on his lawless conduct? Clearly, the Republicans, unlike the homosexual community, are weak and do nothing but whine and make promises that they will never keep. And of course, he is Obama, the first half black inhabitant of the White House so no one can really oppose him without being labeled a "racist" and it seems that politicians would rather be called child killers than racists.

No wonder this country is sliding to Hell at such a rapid pace.

[RunItUpTheGut]

Motley is actually partially correct in his analysis. Davis cannot be forced to condone homosexual marriage as an individual citizen- at least, not yet. However, as an elected official who took an oath of office to follow the law, she has no real choice but to issue licenses or to resign. Oh, she can go to jail but it accomplishes nothing because her office is issuing the licenses in her absence.

On the other hand, Obama, unfortunately another elected official, took an oath to follow the law. He has not done so by his picking and choosing of what immigration laws are to be enforced and what ones are not to be enforced. There are many other examples but immigration laws make the point well.

Why is Davis punished and Obama is left unopposed on his lawless conduct? Clearly, the Republicans, unlike the homosexual community, are weak and do nothing but whine and make promises that they will never keep. And of course, he is Obama, the first half black inhabitant of the White House so no one can really oppose him without being labeled a "racist" and it seems that politicians would rather be called child killers than racists.

No wonder this country is sliding to Hell at such a rapid pace.

Its sad that Obama isn't in Rowan County supporting his fellow democrat :Shaking:

[Granny Bear]

Perhaps they should share a beer and discuss it.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Its sad that Obama isn't in Rowan County supporting his fellow democrat :Shaking:

I suspect that Obama has much more in common with the two little "fellows" who finally got their license than he does with Kim Davis- even though she is a Democrat. Of course, we can assume the two little "fellows" are also Democrats.

However, it is interesting that the fact that Davis is a Democrat has been completely ignored by nearly all the broadcast and news media outlets. It doesn't further their agenda, does it?

[Granny Bear]

Kim Davis' story has intensified the contrast between conservative and liberal media. ALL of them. Even down to her picture, you will see on the conservative sites, a serene and smiling Kim Davis. On the liberal site, you see her face contorted and ugly Kim Davis.

The stories are compelling, too. If her name were left out of the articles, you could not tell that the stories on the conservative side and the stories on the liberal side were about the same person.

To me, it just re-enforces the fact that you to search for the truth anymore. Sure can't trust the media outlets; at least at face value!

[TheRealThing]

Kim Davis' story has intensified the contrast between conservative and liberal media. ALL of them. Even down to her picture, you will see on the conservative sites, a serene and smiling Kim Davis. On the liberal site, you see her face contorted and ugly Kim Davis.

The stories are compelling, too. If her name were left out of the articles, you could not tell that the stories on the conservative side and the stories on the liberal side were about the same person.

To me, it just re-enforces the fact that you to search for the truth anymore. Sure can't trust the media outlets; at least at face value!

Mostly what you're going to get from the media is propaganda, even FOX News is guilty. Their anchors have been on a tear lately, going on and on with a deadly barrage of Donald Trump slams. They're all filled with righteous indignation because Trump is not in awe of Megyn Kelly, and had something to say back to her when she cast him as a man with an ax to grind against women.

IMO, we've got a long way to go in the election season and they just need to let the process go forward and quit all the meddling. There are plenty of talking heads who favor the Trump candidacy. However, one would never know that by listening to the contributors who come on the various Fox News shows. In fact, negative reviews about Trump are all I've heard since the debate. If you ask me Fox is starting to go down the same road the rest of the media has in trying to manipulate outcomes and the personal opinions of their viewers.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Mostly what you're going to get from the media is propaganda, even FOX News is guilty. Their anchors have been on a tear lately, going on and on with a deadly barrage of Donald Trump slams. They're all filled with righteous indignation because Trump is not in awe of Megyn Kelly, and had something to say back to her when she cast him as a man with an ax to grind against women.

IMO, we've got a long way to go in the election season and they just need to let the process go forward and quit all the meddling. There are plenty of talking heads who favor the Trump candidacy. However, one would never know that by listening to the contributors who come on the various Fox News shows. In fact, negative reviews about Trump are all I've heard since the debate. If you ask me Fox is starting to go down the same road the rest of the media has in trying to manipulate outcomes and the personal opinions of their viewers.

You are correct. The days when you could trust the media sources to report the news are gone forever. All are now commentators seeking to further the agenda of their owners. Granny Bear is correct in stating that people must search for the truth. It won't be found in the newspapers or nightly news broadcasts. And that, in my opinion, along with ultra-liberal, amoral government schools, make up the two most dangerous entities in our world today.

[TheRealThing]

[SIZE="2"]I do LOVE how the media has completely ignored the fact that Davis is a Democrat. They will not say that anywhere.
That's how divided our two party system has gotten us. If you vote Dem you are only supposed to believe one way on all issues, and vise versa for Repubs. [/SIZE]

Ive seen on all of these reports that 117 out of 120 clerks are following the law, so who are the other two besides Davis? Ive not seen them mentioned at all. I think one was in Casey County. I know Whitleys wasn't but don't care enough to look and see if she still isn't. Are those the other two not issuing gays licenses?

I find this so hilarious it almost makes me want to go troll these people for being so stupid when they could have just went and got a license right down the road, but some little drama queens (and by queen I mean king, no queen, hell I don't know what some of them are). Its all becoming more and more funny. I cannot wait to pledge my full support for polygamist, goats, and the dead to all get married. If we are going to let the gays do it under an amendment not allowing discrimination of a choice, then there is no reason a polygamist shouldn't be able to get married.
Lets watch it fall further and further. Maybe if we just start pushing it, the big man will go ahead and burn it down.

Very reasonable observation Run. It points out what I believe to be the glaring inconsistency within the Democratic Party, which falsely holds forth the notion that an aura of harmony and unity wraps them all like a warm blanket. The Dems are comprised almost completely by special interest groups who bear very little in common with each other except that they want things given to them, and they've been taught to look to government for them. And after all, is that not essentially the Dem's platform? In fact, from what I can determine, the only tie that binds is their shared motivation to 'fleece the man.' Right now the redistribution scheme is forcing the traditional powers of this land to fund the wants and desires of the poorer masses whom Dems claim to so fiercely represent.

But, you know the liberal media would never admit to any sort of party rift, much less such as those mentioned above, and this again is a fact that is very useful in revealing the media's true mission. Simply put, they make Republicans look as bad as they can and, they make Dems look as good as they can. So they report with much zeal any perceived or contrived fractures within the Republican Party. Making it seem as though reality has somehow passed them all over, leaving those poor Republicans rudderless, groping in fragmented disarray in an effort to rediscover relevance.

So, to my way of thinking it is the Dems who will be scratching each other's eyes out when the free goodies start to wane. And it will be the Republicans who will snatch credibility out of the jaws of ridicule. And let's not kid ourselves, though the people are willing to vote for a continuance of more freebies, down deep they all know it's wrong. Unfortunately from what I have seen the cure is going to be a rough one however. Way past just flipping on the light switch of understanding, like the drug addict is hopelessly hooked on drugs and will do absolutely anything for his next fix, those who have been born into a state of dependency on the state, will have to go through withdrawal. It will not be pretty, but it is coming as sure as the looming 20 trillion dollar day of reckoning.

[WideRight05]

Unfortunately I won't be able to go that direction, but there will be a rally tomorrow in Grayson, Ky at 3:00 p.m. Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee will be in attendance.

[WideRight05]

Kim Davis has been released from jail!

[64SUR]

I wonder why Ted Cruz didn't get to speak. I was looking forward to him speaking....Just saying :igiveup:

[WideRight05]

I wonder why Ted Cruz didn't get to speak. I was looking forward to him speaking....Just saying :igiveup:

I was wondering the same thing. My guess is that it wasn't arranged for that to happen because Cruz didn't commit to the event until late.

There were some other prominent statewide figures there as well. Matt Bevin, Thomas Massie were also in attendance.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

It could be argued that, when Kim Davis took her oath of office, the law didn't permit issuing marriage licenses to homosexual pairs. Thus, she is being subjected to the effects of an ex post facto law. In light of that, it would seem logical that she cannot be forced to provide something that was illegal when she took her oath of office. It further seems logical that the SC ruling should not apply to her until she seeks reelection. If reelected, she would take her oath for her new term which would, unlike her prior oath, include the new "interpretation".

This argument won't win because it flies in the face of political correctness. Nonetheless, I believe it is, under normal circumstances and proper application of the law, a reasonable and correct argument. The legal history concerning ex post facto laws is clear. Kim Davis took no new oath after the SC made its dubious ruling.

Need an example? You are driving along a road clearly marked with a speed limit of 55 mph. You are driving 45 mph. Down the road, you are stopped and issued a speeding ticket. What is the justification? After you passed the 55 mph sign, the state came along and changed that particular sign to 35 mph. Thus, you are speeding. Silly example. Not really. It applies quite well.

[TheRealThing]

I seem to remember a situation out in San Francisco in late 2003 or early 2004 in which the Mayor took it upon himself to issue marriage licenses to same sex 'couples' in direct contravention to existing state and federal law.

If memory serves, nobody did much of anything about it. No threats of throwing Mayor Newsom in jail. No railings from among conservatives or anybody else about his duty under the constitution to enforce the law. It's really sad and hilarious at the same time. If the left wants something they always use the law, to run over the law in order to get it. When the Mayor of SF was illegally issuing marriage licenses to gays they saw his lawless acts as acceptable civil rights activism. But, if Kim Davis seems to lack nothing where a viable defense is concerned (especially in a state whose legislature has yet to act on the matter) the left demands she do her job as they see it.

In any case, we see where sitting on our conservative hands has gotten us. Now we see the entirety of the Democratic Party picking and choosing what they will enforce and what they will ignore. Dream Act anyone?

[Harry Rex Vonner]

I seem to remember a situation out in San Francisco in late 2003 or early 2004 in which the Mayor took it upon himself to issue marriage licenses to same sex 'couples' in direct contravention to existing state and federal law.

If memory serves, nobody did much of anything about it. No threats of throwing Mayor Newsom in jail. No railings from among conservatives or anybody else about his duty under the constitution to enforce the law. It's really sad and hilarious at the same time. If the left wants something they always use the law, to run over the law in order to get it. When the Mayor of SF was illegally issuing marriage licenses to gays they saw his lawless acts as acceptable civil rights activism. But, if Kim Davis seems to lack nothing where a viable defense is concerned (especially in a state whose legislature has yet to act on the matter) the left demands she do her job as they see it.

In any case, we see where sitting on our conservative hands has gotten us. Now we see the entirety of the Democratic Party picking and choosing what they will enforce and what they will ignore. Dream Act anyone?

Good post and the "bottom line" is contained in the first sentence of the last paragraph. Conservatives in general and Christian Conservatives in particular have been derelict in that they have done nothing and let amoral liberals destroy our traditional laws.

Above all, I blame the preachers and those who sit in their pews every time the door to the church is unlocked. The preachers wax on eloquently driving home points that we have all heard over and over for years but they never address the moral issues that are destroying our country for fear of insulting someone. If you doubt this, just wait and see what your preacher talks about tomorrow. Personally, I don't need any more sermons on St. Paul in prison, Daniel in the lion's den, the bravery of Moses, or the necessity of tithing. However, I would like a good sermon on the premeditated murder of the innocents by the women carrying them and the desecration of the sacrament of marriage.

But, even with relevant sermons, one must remember that actions speak louder than words. All these words haven't saved one baby from slaughter, have they?

[Truth]

That rancid odor enveloping the atmosphere is coming from all those ACLU types, homosexual marriage supporters, media mouthpieces, and enabling Democrats who have literally filled their pants upon learning that Pope Francis met, according to the leftwing Reuters, with Kim Davis and expressed his support of her position and her courage.

And, to think that all those amoralists thought that Francis was wonderful because he was one of them. Actually, they are nothing more than parasites.

[tvtimeout]

Care less, one person thinks she is God, ignores that she gave licenses to people that committed adultery. Somehow that is ok though? .Bottom line it did not change my meaning of marriage, tax payers should have the same tax breaks as everyone else. I think we should not issue business licenses for companies that work on Sundays. If any business is open on Sunday, we should fine them. Does that make since. Of course not, why because I am enforcing my own religious belief on someone else.

People that want to follow Christ, love your neighbor, love God. For those that are perfect congratulations you never needed a savior... if you believe that you might need to remove the 2X4 in your own eye.

[TheRealThing]

^^ As far as I know Kim Davis is the only state or federal official who has of late, shown the courage to stand up for her Savior with regard to the scourge or homosexuality. Your argument like the Titanic, is somewhat stricken with holes. But to further demonstrate my point let's linger on a bit to discuss the plight of the Titanic and her very unfortunate passengers.

The doomed passengers and crew would have greatly preferred to make dock in New York on schedule. But something that felt like a little shudder, to their horror, turned out to be a large gash in the hull which sent Titanic to the bottom instead of the safety of NY harbor. Ironically, Americans have felt a few shudders lately on the US Ship of State too. And the similarities go on because in like manner to the Titanic, whose band continued to play as if nothing was wrong right up until the icy waves lapped at the musicians feet, we continue to hear liberals whistling in the dark as if nothing is wrong.

Along with a host of other things such as the impending doom represented by the US "nuclear deal" with Iran, liberals maintain that enshrining the homosexual life style into US law, and that in direct contravention to the clearly set forth Word of God, won't hurt anything. All caving into them has accomplished is to embolden them to demand more by way of concession. But the worst of it is the large gash we have sustained as the result in the hull of our ship of state. Between the twin nation killers (gashes) of abortion on demand and the acceptance of homosexuality as a viable alternative life style, our nation is headed for the bottom. Many concerned Christians refuse to play in the band or allow the band to distract them from the truth. When the Jew returned to Jerusalem from 70 years of bondage by the Babylonians, God challenged His people to separate themselves from the nations, and to be a peculiar people", in order to avoid the fetters of the sins of that day so that they would be a better witness for Him.

I will agree that missteps such as those mentioned above are proof positive that America has turned her back on the Lord, and are manifestation therefore of man's fallen condition and his need to be cleansed from sin by the power of the Gospel. I completely disagree however, with the notion that we should just allow anything and everything to go on, such as gay marriage, owing to the fact that we are all sinners even if many of those sinners are saved by grace. You're certainly not showing your homosexual neighbor love, if you don't warn him about the coming judgment now are you?

[tvtimeout]

would you agree or disagree that offering a certificate of marriage to someone that is divorced would also be turning their back on the Lord?

[TheRealThing]

would you agree or disagree that offering a certificate of marriage to someone that is divorced would also be turning their back on the Lord?

You may recall from your Bible studies, the account of the days of Nehemiah's return to Jerusalem from the Babylonian captivity to rebuild the city wall. God has never been in favor of His chosen people marrying outside of the Jewish race. The reason was because their spouses would inevitably turn them toward idol worship which was rampant among the nations at that time.

Ezra, high Priest of the line of Aaron, had led the Jews in Jerusalem to a great revival, for the people were repentant (major among their sin was the act of marrying outside their race) as according to the Biblical account in Ezra 10:1 (KJV) "for the people wept sore." According to Ezra 10:19 Jews who had transgressed God's law by taking for themselves wives from among the nations, all divorced them. V19 "And they gave their hands that they would put away their wives; and being guilty, they offered a ram of the flock for their trespass."

So, in answering your question directly, no, "offering a certificate of marriage to someone that is divorced would NOT be turning their back on the Lord." Obviously the Jews of Nehemiah's day had to get divorced to please God.

Divorce has always been a problem on this earth. The Bible is loaded with discussions and accounts of those who have gotten divorced. Sometimes divorce is sanctioned but never, is it okay with the Lord when men get a divorce. And I would offer this, most people who get divorced and remarry don't have the first clue that it is all that bad a thing to do. The reason,? --- they've never been properly taught.

However, and this is something that you just don't seem to get, the sin of homosexuality is on a whole nother plane from divorce. God never erased a city by burning it off the face of the earth for the sin of divorce. But He certainly did for the sin of homosexuality. Homosexuality is inherently evil, and the practice of same carries with it the automatic and inescapable penalty of banishment to Hell for having done it. Not so with divorce, though, loss of reward and hard times while in this life are often part and parcel to having gotten a divorce.

Further, God has not stated or indicated anywhere in the Scripture that He will turn the divorce offender over to a reprobate mind. Now, for the homosexual, being turned over by God Himself is a forgone conclusion and is clearly set forth in Scripture.

[RunItUpTheGut]

This Is a funny story, but true. I was in the Bahamas with my wife vacationing there for a few days before heading up to a bunch of different places when this rally was going on.

In a small Bahamas town, my wife just had to go shopping of course, so we went in this little clothing store. They had a flat screen up and had it on CNN while this was being shown. There was about an 80 year old woman sitting there and a little girl maybe 20 working. The little old woman never said a word. The young girl couldn't care less, and she saw me looking at the tv while Huckabee was speaking and glued to it. She asked if I was from the US and I said yes, actually im from the same state as whats happening on TV there. She said "oh really?, ive been seeing that, what a brave woman to stand up for what she believes". I said, yea we have a lot of people that would like to see her put to death over it and mad because she wont sign them. The little 80 year old woman sitting there knitting finally spoke and said, "Its hard to keep faith when the world tells you are wrong, I imagine that tends to be when he judges you the most".

They both agreed they would love to never see it legalized anywhere and being on vacation the last thing I wanted to talk about was this so I informed them I was from the same place Colonel Sanders was and damn people down there love there KFC nicker:

Two very nice people just living there lives and not bothering anyone. It would be nice if a liberal could do that.

[ronald reagan]

. If there is no enacted law on homosexual marriage, how can Kim Davis enforce it? All the SC ruling said was that homosexuals can not be discriminated against. They did not strike down state sovereignty on the matter so, what was the rush all about in Kentucky anyway? Are we a people who depend on the workings of our legislature, or are we just going to roll up the sidewalks and let judges order us to do things now?

Well, your understanding of the opinion of the courts is flawed. In fact, the ruling says, "same-sex couples may now exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States", in its majority opinion. There doesn't have to be a law on the books authorizing same-sex marriage, for the marriage to occur at this point. Its moot. They also DID strike down state sovereignty on the matter by further strengthening the DOMA reversal as stated in the majority opinion. It makes clear that a state MUST recognize marriages performed in other states, same sex or not.

The ruling authorized gay marriage, but also made it a fundamental right.

Lets review another ruling as our basis: Roe v. Wade. It made abortions legal in all states in the 1st trimester. A large block of conservative states banned the procedure up until that point. The ruling overturned all state legislatures and state laws at that point. States didn't have to explicitly authorize it, it became legal as a result of the ruling that said they couldn't ban it.

Sodomy laws were overturned between consenting adults about 12-13 years ago. States didn't have to pass a law 'authorizing' it. It became legal as a result of the ruling which said it couldn't be ILLEGAL.

Think about this.... in the absence of laws, things become legal by omission. If a state didn't have gay marriage banned, it would be legal. If the courts overturn the ban, it becomes legal. Hence, gay marriage doesn't have to be explicitly authorized by state statute.

I'd suggest you study case law, and the constitution to get a better grasp on the subject.