Rowan KY Clerk Sued For Not Issuing Marriage Licenses

No you've claimed it. At least 3 people have corrected you.

no. The first ban was in 1971.

 

My Answer was no because it is not against his beliefs.

Marriage has always been defined a one man and one woman.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, an epiphany. Then why not write that epiphany into the law?

 

The only reason we're talking about it is because they or you brought up the issue of race regarding this issue. We can banter about it but your just derailing the thread.

 

How do you know?

Demonstrably false.

because the 14th amendment is already the law.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope. What was brought up were the arguments used in favor of interracial bans being identical to the arguments in favor of same sex marriage bans.

it isnt banter. It's a legal fact.

 

The epiphany is that it has always been there. And now people are realizing it.

 

I don't know, does being a called a "guy" make one gay as well? One thing is for certain, any gay activist is as gay as the gays themselves; if not gay in the flesh, gay in the mind. And Kennedy is definitely a gay activist.

 

And while we're at it, an awful lot of caucasian "blacks" marched during the civil rights demonstrations. Maybe not black in the flash, but black in their minds. Interesting how the desire to see equal rights for all citizens makes one black one day, gay the next day, Jewish another day, Asian another day. Who knew minds were so plastic?

 

You're just rambling on with gay activist nonsense. Traditional marriage is between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman, is it not? So tell me why you think an unmarried man and an unmarried woman should not be allowed to marry.

And tell me if marriage licenses are being issued to polygamists, or to a brother and a sister? If not, then why homosexuals?

Kentucky law and the first and tenth amendments of the US Constitution are both on the side of the clerk. Do you not know this?

 

The first amendment is as constitutional as constitutional gets, and the judges you side with are violating it.

 

If the gay activists courts were bound to adhere to the federal constitution, then they would adhere to both the first amendment and the tenth amendment. But they adhere to neither, and that is what nullifies their rulings, and protects those who defy them. Those like the county clerk and the couple in Oregon that oppressive tyrants like you are trying to persecute.

People like you belong in jail.

 

Defined by whom? And what gives them the authority to decide that definition?

 

She won't go to jail, she will be fired. We have freedom of religion here in America, but she is letting her religious beliefs get in the way of performing her legal duties. No one is forcing her to be a county clerk.

 

Interesting how the same people who equate heterosexuality to homosexuality, also equate a person's skin color to homosexuality. As a white guy, I side with the blacks who voted down gay marriage in CA in 2008 by saying "your behavior is not our skin color".

A reasoned person can distinguish these things, black or white; whereas a gay activist sees only his own activism. A gay activist would equate a horse to a dove if it served his own gay activism.

 

The couple in Oregon was convicted under STATE law - not Federal law.

 

Gay Americans are first and for-most American Citizens. They can be from any race. They deserve no more or no less respect than any other American citizen. If I and my wife of 24 years can travel from state to state and still enjoy the privileges and immunities of marriage than a gay couple legally married in a state should be able to travel from state to state and enjoy those same privileges and immunities.

What's so hard to understand about that?

It's about American citizens enjoying the equal protections of the law. Why are some people so freaked out by that?

 

The first amendment gives us freedom of and freedom FROM religion.

There is nothing about legalizing gay marriage that violates yours or anyone's freedom of religion.

 

The first amendment gives people freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion.

No where in the constitution does it allow for the religious to use said religion to bludgeon the rights of other citizens.

Keep trying with that pathetic whining about religion.

 

Religious beliefs do not permit you to break the law. Sorry

- - - Updated - - -

The 14th amendment supersedes both the 1st and 10th.

 

Actually, there are people who draw irrelevant distinctions with respect to the rights of ALL people, and people who defend EVERYONE'S rights, which are the same for everyone. It's those who would say these guys deserve these rights, and those guys deserve those rights, whoi are the activists. They are drawing distinctions when "equal protection for all citizens" draws no distinctions at all.

 

It has been in all governments' interest, since ancient Babylon and the first law code we have discovered, to promote marriage. People who are married cause less problems and contribute more to the prosperity of a nation. The US government sees 10-15M people who are denied the right to get married. Only an incompetent government would leave this large block of people in the "single" category. There aren't millions of brothers and sisters or polygamists denied the right to marry.

The 1A has nothing to do with allowing gays to marry. And it's already been settled that states can't use the 10A to discriminate against people.

 

My apologies, I read gay when you meant guy.

Still doesn't make Kennedy, Breyer, Sotamayor, Ginsburg or Kagan gay. Just means they don't believe in discrimination.

 

The first amendment applies to Oregon, as much as it does to the other 49 states.

 

Special privileges for special interest groups have nothing to do with "equal protection", and everything to do with special privileges at the expense of others not a party to the special interest group.

Even the incentives and benefits for traditional marriage have no basis in constitutional law; they could be eliminated at the stroke of a pen. So don't try to tell me that special privileges for gays at the expense of others do have a basis in constitutional law.

They don't.

 

It is indeed violating our freedoms, and the states of Oregon and Kentucky are proving it.

The first amendment protects you from having religion imposed upon you, but it also protects people like me from having gay marriage imposed upon us. No one is being sued or persecuted for not wanting to participate in a traditional church wedding, or a church service, as they shouldn't be; but people are being sued and persecuted for not wanting to participate in a gay wedding, or a gay event.

That is a form of oppressive tyranny, and it is people like you that are the oppressors.

 

Then why are gay activists like you discriminating against 17 year olds, cousins, the mentally deficient, the incestuous, and the polygamists? Or have you just not gotten around to their equal marriage rights yet?

It is not possible for a liberal activist to understand the difference between a "right" and a "liberal agenda". That is what makes them the oppressive tyrants they are.