So a Catholic judge should be allowed to deny divorces ?

That is a very reasonable solution to the whole affair whereas everybody's rights remain intact and all parties can maintain the peace. Any public servant in a position based on a standard when they are hired and the standard changes to something that would compromise their rights are perfectly within those rights to retain their position and other accommodations need to be made.

However, if they accept the position when existing conditions would compromise their beliefs, then they have accepted the duties of their office by fraud. Kim Davis is of the former, not the later as are the judges.

 

First, any public official either political or civil take an oath of office that must include they will faithfully defend the constitutions of the United States and their state. The constitution and all laws made pursuant to it are the supreme laws of the land. States do not have and in many cases are prohibited from passing laws on federal jurisdictional matters. State courts MUST prosecute federal law matters as Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction but personal and subject matter.

As to the matter at hand on Kim Davis, you seem to be totally misinformed by the propaganda of the issue.

 

So you are saying you would surrender to slavery rather that support one that stood on her rights? Ever wonder how a free country has become a nation of slaves?

 

So you actually believe this has become a nation of slaves? Now a nation of slaves would require a class of slave owners so I am curious as to whom or what entity you think constitutes the slave owners.

My guess would be you think we have all become slaves of the government. So then all you have to do is tell us who you think owns the government.

 

From your source"

She has nothing against the clerks issuing licenses, she is standing for her rights. And to those that got the licenses, she is correct, they are not valid and were issued fraudulently.

 

Start with Hitlerly Liesaton and Debba Swatfreakman, then let's see most of those other liars in politics on both teams. Then we can start with all those losers so proudly hailed by the political teams as their prime audience. And I would dare say that if you are unsure of the definition of true sense, you have never had the pleasure.

Personally I wouldn't address anything to you, seems another misconception on your part. But I will refute posts that I don't agree with, don't care who posts them. Clear view, since when did mud provide a clear view of anything? Perhaps I may suggest you procure some wipes.

 

You fire questions out of your six gun at our feet making us dance.

The problem was not created by those that support “consent of the governed.”

The problem was created by a tyranny of five, imposing on all States a religious edict, which the amendment ratified well over a hundred years ago after the Civil War was never intended for that purpose, and it deprives those States of “consent of the governed.”

This is about the design of the government.

The Congress passing legislation with the Senate (representing the States, two senators from each) is not depriving the States of “consent of the governed”; as the Section five Enabling Clause says, “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

You have not made any valid argument by the questions shot out of your six gun, terrorist, because the questions wouldn’t exist without the Supreme Legislature establishing religion for all States, and that has philosophical ramifications extending beyond our borders. The philosophical difference means that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were wrong, "concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury," as the nature of your law philosophically does do them injury, it deprives the potential state of “consent of the governed.”

The Supreme Legislature of Five’s philosophy has established ONE religion of scrupulous conformity and it says:

And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Homo Allah.

The next amendment also has one of those enabling clauses too, “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” Let’s imagine that an alien race of illegal immigrant babies, instantly citizens due to previous rulings, eats people, as that is what space vampires do, maybe they are called “Omecs,” shall they have the right to vote too? Not in my world but in yours.

The expansion of US law by any means, not by “consent of the governed,” is a declaration of war against religious States contrary to your Homo Allah.

Every tyranny your actions create and worship, enables the equal and opposite reaction of tyranny by those opposed to Homo Allah. You leave no “social contract” but the ONE.

This does not have to be about marriage or religion, better to marry than burn in lust in a bathhouse spreading a fruit-loop virus that murders more people than Hitler, this is about the harm that will be done maintaining the five tyrants.

"Part of American leadership is making sure that we’re doing nation building here at home. That will help us maintain the kind of American leadership that we need." (Obama)

 

Let's be absolutely clear, from NBC News:

Laws never change, they were here before the universe and will be here when it's gone, they are immutable. It is only the whims of man by malum prohibitum enacted and enforced as "color of law" that changes. Pretty obvious law is a subject that you lack even a rudimentary knowledge outside rumors and propaganda.

My, what childish antics that perfectly demonstrates the fallacy of your supposition, I rest my case

 

Actually no belief to it that would imply an emotional rather than a logical determination. This nation IS a nation of slaves.

Again there is no class of owners, there are multiple classes of owners spread all across the lives of the slaves. Government servants are but a single entity of the owners of most, the citizens can't seem to bow down fast enough. But as the name implies, they are still but servants and servants have masters, many layers. To even try and instill that the citizens are free is a joke.

 

All judges are allowed to deny divorces.
Why do you want to discriminate against Catholics ?

 

Oh, a woman "in the truest sense of the word" is one who obeys and agrees with you..........

 

Nobody asked her to witness a gay honeymoon. She is a governmental employee a paid with taxpayer money. The people through thier vote have elected representatives that made gay marriage legal. The Supreme Court has ruled. There is no provision in the constitution which gives her the right to interject her personal religion into public policy.

 

Yeah, first make sure your HTML tags are properly terminated. Don't want to cause any strain so I'll stop there as the rest seems to be beyond your current comprehension.

By the way, I don't ignore anything or I would not have responded. As to reason, the unreasonable can never be reasoned with as they lack the comprehensive skills to follow logic. They just collect input for every conceivable propaganda source and then just skip right over the middle step of the trivium to output.

So when you choose to ignore that which was presented for suppositions based on propaganda, don't try to imply that the fault lies elsewhere. Perhaps for once, try and take ownership for your actions.

 

Again trying to discuss that which is way over your ability to arrive at a logical conclusion, the input/output model skipping over the processing.

No a woman that feels they need to obey or agree with me would be in your realm, not mine. You seem to have no concept of honor much less integrity.

 

Should try reading the constitution some time, you may accidentally discover what it means.

That most unsupreme collection of misfit mystical beings in their black robes are incapable of ruling anything even though they are psychopaths that believe they are gods.

Kim is a constitutional officer, elected, that swore an oath to defend that document and the state document you need to read. Until then, your opinion is not based on facts, just conjecture.

 

No it doesn't. That law was struck down by the Supreme Court.

No, they ruled states can't exclude same sex couples from marriage, and that each state must recognize same sex couples as married if married in another state.

 

The oath of office of the mayor of San Francisco:

"I, ______, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Consti-
tution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign
and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the
State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without

any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will
well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about
to enter.
"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate,
nor
am I a member of any party or organization, political or other-
wise, that now advocates the overthrow of the Government of the
United States or of the State of California by force or violence

or other unlawful means; that within the five years immediately
preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not
been a member of any party or organization, political or other-
wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the
United States or of the State of California by force or violence

or other unlawful means except as follows:
________________________________________________________________

(If no affiliations, write in the words "No Exceptions")
and that during such time as I hold the office of ______________

________________________________ I will not advocate nor become
(name of office)
a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise,
that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United
States or of the State of California by force or violence or
other unlawful means."

The oath of Kim Davis:

"I, ....., do swear that I will well and truly discharge the
duties of the office of .............. County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my
skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees,
opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all
books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not
knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the
duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God."

Unlike the mayor of San Francisco, there is NO reference to the federal constitution, federal laws, federal courts or to the federal government in any way, nor any reference to marriage licenses. Rather, it refers only the papers of the Court and to papers that come into her possession.

The other notable difference is there is no reference to God in the oath of the mayor of San Francisco and specifically is required in the oath of Kim Davis. It is an oath required of her to make or she could not take office. Invoking "God" in her decisions is not just arguably allowable, it is literally required under Kentucky law as a condition of her being Country Clerk. A person can not take office until they take the statutory required oath of office.

Since she was refusing to issue anyone a marriage license, she was not showing any partiality.

She was required under Kentucky law to swear an oath that she will do what she believes God would have her do as County Clerk. Granted, most people are liars and don't give a damn about what they swear to in an oath. But refusing to violate your required oath of office should not be a jailable offense. Most politicians don't give a damn about their oath of office. While I totally disagree with her on LGTB rights and SSM marriage, she is a rarity in that she takes her oath of office seriously. I suspect swearing to "so help me God" means exactly nothing to most politicians.

 

The SCOTUS didn't change anything. They said it was Unconstitutional to deny that two people of the same sex can enter into a marriage contract. The Women's Suffrage amendment makes it Unconstitutional for any state to deny women the right to vote. That does not change the fact that the States have jurisdiction over voting in their state. (One or another of the New England States allowed Women to vote as Early as the 1700s , it may have done that in the Colonial Legislature).

What gets to me is how much people are willing to let their religious beliefs override the Constitution. We need some sort of Constitutional Amendment saying that Religion cannot influence Constitutional matters...oh...wait.

 

What a convoluted mess of nonsense. Laws that are found to be unconstitutional are void, they don't have to be reviewed and brought back to the state legislators to re-vote on to see if the state wants to reconsider the unconstitutionality of the law, as unconstitutional or not, it is already void.

 

I have sworn oaths in affidavits and once for office (a Democratic primary election judge). I have never sworn "so help me God," nor would I. But Kentucky law required Kim Davis do so as a condition of being County Clerk and she did so.

Until the Supreme Court rules oaths with "so help me God" is constitutionally prohibited, there is no legitimacy in jailing anyone for making decisions and taking action or any inaction in consideration of what the person believes is God's directive. It is literally a requirement of office for most positions in the USA.

There is a fundamental flaw in a Court summarily imprisoning someone without bond, ability to call and cross examine witnesses, no indictment or jury trial allowed for the offense of not breaking their required sworn oath of office, isn't there?

 

You should read the first line of your signature and ponder what that actually says.

 

......so you have no reason or explanation....again....

- - - Updated - - -

And you mentioned "" woman in the truest sense of the word"....and still can't explain it.......

 

I am reminded of the line from the movie "Braveheart." Wallace to the judge, "Never in my life have I sworn allegiance to the king."

Kim Davis has never sworn allegiance to the US Constitution, to the federal government or to federal courts. She swore an oath to handle the papers of the Rowan county judges she was the clerk to, to not show partiality - which she wasn't as she was not issuing any marriage licenses - and she swore allegiance to God as required by Kentucky law.

Her oath of office was not declared "void" by the Supreme Court, was it? That should be one element of her appealing her being held in contempt and imprisoned by a federal judge. Her oath was not to the US Constitution nor federal laws. Her sworn allegiance was only to God and her only duty to the judges of her county. The federal court system should at least go on record declaring any oath invoking "God" is constitutionally prohibited and therefore is void rather than now imprisoning people for following their REQUIRED sworn oath of office.