Rowan KY Clerk Sued For Not Issuing Marriage Licenses

So 10 to 15 million constitutes a right, and less than 10 million doesn't constitute a right?

You obviously have no idea what a right is, just what a liberal agenda is. Neither is your activism in compliance with the 1st, 10th, or 14th amendment. Liberal activism violates all of them, makes a mockery of them. Liberal activism is a toxin that perverts the constitution for its own gains, at the expense of everyone else's individual freedoms.

 

It's the 1st, 10th, and 14th amendments to the constitution that they don't believe in; which is why they repeatedly trample on the very constitution they were sworn to uphold.

 

In your opinion that's what they're doing. I'd trust their opinion of how to apply the Constiutition over that of an anonymous person on the Internet who is upset that a decision went against what they thought it should be. Something about them having decades of experience practicing law.

 

For the life of me I'll never understand conservatives. I have no idea how someone else having the ability to marry, which in no way affects you at all, is somehow at the expense of your freedom, lol

 

Hope you are enjoying SSM being legal across the lands.

 

And how do you determine who should have what rights? Just by doing what you're told, or by examining the merits, or by following tradition, or simple emotional reaction? "Tyrants" are generally not motivated to grant more rights to more people.

 

Sorry, no law is being broken. Pot smoking is legal in some areas, yet no one is obligated to provide it to them. The same holds true for gay marriage.

Your belief that the 14th supersedes the 1st and the 10th is proof positive that the 14th violates the 1st and the 10th; and thus has no standing in the perverted form that activist judges have formed it.

 

About as much as I enjoy our rivers being polluted with the sludge from cesspools.

 

A special privilege for a special interest group is not a right. So you are building your argument upon a false premise. Which is like trying to build a house upon a crooked foundation; the house becomes as crooked as the foundation.

 

Gay marriage affects everyone who has to subsidize it. Which involves everyone who has ever paid a dollar of tax to the government. And it certainly affects those who do not wish to cater to the act, of which they have no vested interest; and are being sued and persecuted for doing nothing but complying with their first amendments rights.

So your belief that gay marriage affects no one is a false belief, and thus everything you derive from that belief is false as well.

 

That's not good for the economy, though

But I agree she's clearly in the wrong. She needs to check her religion at the door or find another job, like working for a church.

 

That's correct. And a DENIAL of a right enjoyed by the majority for no compelling reason is a problem.

I happen to like equality. Find your own damn premise.

Fortunately, step by step, that foundation is being straightened out. First non-landholders were allowed to vote, and then slaves were freed and the males could vote, and then women were allowed to vote, and then "separate but equal" was replaced by equal, and now those denied marriage have been finally permitted to marry. Every step is an improvement, and every step has been fought by those afraid of change.

 

"Kentucky governor orders county clerk: Quit or issue same-sex marriage licenses"

http://www.christiantoday.com/artic...or.issue.same.sex.marriage.licenses/58929.htm

"Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear—whose father and grandfather were reportedly both Christian ministers and who identifies himself as a Baptist—told Casey Davis that he only had two choices: Uphold the US Constitution or quit his job."

 

The clerk is obligated by law to issue marriage licenses to any lawfully eligible couple. Refusing to do so is against the law.

Analogy fail. Marriage is a constitutional right.

Do you understand what amendments do?

 

No it doesn't.

What tax dollars?

Public accomodation laws are almost 60 years old.

It's a demonstrable fact you are not affected in any way.

 

Great I'm happy you have to deal with it and can't do a damn thing about it, enjoy!

 

The 14th Amendment doesn't explicitly supersede the 10th or the 1st.

However, as a practical affect of incorporation by the 14th, the 10th Amendment has been largely rendered irrelevant. The 1st is still in full force, however it's still subject to limits, like all amendments.

I can dig up some case law and articles about incorporation of the 14th and the 10th if you'd like.

 

I know enough about rights to know that some of the founders didn't want a Bill of Rights. They didn't want one because they foresaw exactly what is happening today. If they enumerated 10 of them, then government would think that means we only have 10. I notice your side has been completely ignoring the 9th A which states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Whatever did the founders mean by the 9th A? What other rights were they talking about? There must be some, otherwise what was the purpose in including it? Surely the right to marry someone of your choice is one of those rights.

 

Whose forcing you to marry a person of the same gender?

Please point them out. They need to be stopped.

 

You can start with Kentucky and Oregon. Or do you believe that government workers don't have constitutional rights? Or that caterers can't choose which events they cater to?

You know nothing of constitutional rights and individual freedoms, you know only your own liberal agenda; and a vile and oppressive agenda it is.

 

A right to receive special interest group privileges at the expense of others is not enumerated in the 9th Amendment. Neither does it state that a license or benefit granted to one qualified group, entitles all other groups the same license or benefit. If so, all non-veterans would be eligible for veterans benefits; and all non-dentists could be issued a dentist's license on demand.

Do you not know that the 9th Amendment is an anti-federalist Amendment, designed to prevent the Federalists form solidifying their own power under the guise of "rights". And do you not know that the Kennedy ruling does exactly that, by imposing gay marriage upon all people who may or may not want to be a party to it? Which of course, is a direct violation of the 1st , 9th, and 10th Amendments.

Gay activists like you are so obsessed your own gay activism, you would argue that the Book of Leviticus makes a case for gay marriage.

 

There is case law that adheres to the Amendments, and there is case law that strays from the Amendments. Case law by itself has little relevance.

In general, judicial activists pervert the Amendments for their own personal views, otherwise they wouldn't be activists in the first place. And the end result is the loss of our constitutional freedoms and liberties. Currently, there are only 3 justices on the Supreme Court, the other 6 are all activists, in one perverted form or another.

 

I already know the oppressive and perverted mind of liberals like you, so no need for you to confirm it in writing.

 

It's a demonstrable fact that you have your head in the sand of gay activism; and can't see anything that isn't in the form of a gay activism.

- - - Updated - - -

Same answer as my answer above.

 

What compelling reason is there to deny veterans benefits to non-veterans? Wouldn't the non-veterans benefit from them as well?

You like equating things that aren't equal because it serves your own persona agenda; at the expense of others. It's your own tyranny you like, not equality.

Which homosexual is being denied the right to vote? Those rights already exist; so just another false equivalency on your part. The entire agenda of the liberal mind is based upon false equivalencies, because there is no reality to the liberal agenda; just liberal activism at the expense of our individual freedoms and liberties.