So a Catholic judge should be allowed to deny divorces ?

You might find some who would agree with the catholic, but good like finding anyone who also supports religious freedom for a muslim. OMG! Sharia Law is coming!
Also, Jehovas Witness's who become doctors could say, refuse to do a life saving blood transfusion.

 

if she tries to invalidate those licenses, she will find herself back in jail......

 

Okay. It makes no sense... but okay.

 

says her and her lawyer....

I guess we will see if she is stupid enough to try and stop her employees from issuing the licenses when she gets back to work

her only employee that seems to support her is her own son, which I am not sure legally can work under her, he needs to be moved to another department

.

 

What is it about a United States Supreme Court decision... that people do not understand?

Kentucky's laws (interpretation of the United States Constitution) do not supersede those laws as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Any "oath" taken in any State, must fall under the broader authority of the United States Constitution.

We've been through this before, fellow Americans.

 

lol, your funny, I would spit out the gum.... course I am not a religious nut like Kim

you refuse to spit out your gum and are found in contempt of court, you wont be suing the judge, lol

.

 

I know exactly what it means. Obviously you do not. people who use the law to discriminate, and to deny other basic rights, fall in the category you are looking for. People who used the government to pass Jim Crow laws etc, are described to a tee in that phrase. Government isn't a cure all for everything people are bigoted of, and equel protection under the law is not a witch hunt or misuse of the government's responsibility.

 

So what you mean is that government that does anything you don't like is a disease, but for doing what you want government should be all powerful over we the peasants. In other words a government control freak from both directions.

 

The mega-billion dollar legal trade union has taken over government, the courts and all but totally trashed the Constitution and Bill of Rights. You not only have rights you buy from their trade union - which generally is more than every dollar you have - and there are a million pages of laws and rules they constantly change and add on to force you to have to work to give them your money - and if that doesn't get your money they'll just announce the laws and rules THEY made are now illegal doing a double take on you, so you have to try to buy your rights again - even try to buy your way out of jail.

Try having any rights within the legal industry's courts - all members of the lawyers' union themselves - and find out what legal rights you have without paying off their union. "Only a fool shows up in court without a lawyer." If you go to court without a lawyer, nearly all judges treat you like a union busting scab crossing a strike picket line.

 

Nope and I don't understand how you can take what I said and pretend it means anything other than what I said. A government that does its job, abides by the constitution and its intent, is not evil. People who try and reinterpret it into something else are the control freaks. In this situation they were thwarted, and rightly so.

Look at it historically. When the document was created, slavery was accepted and slaves were defined as 'property' so they wouldn't fall under definition of a person. These individuals were people, under any definition, but the government turned a blind eye to the obvious misinterpretation. The constitution didn't use the word slaves or slavery, but there were phrases that were used to identify the individuals known as property for political purposes. The 3/5th clause, went so far as to recognize them as people, but just partially, and the slave states used the law both ways, to enhance their population for representation purposes since they were now people, but only 3/5th human so that they could still be defined as property. This was something the northern free states voted against but not because these were people, but because it wasn't equitable in having their way, so they declared it unfair.

This is an example of misuse of the government for personal gain. Nobody really cared about these people. All they were concerned with was using the law to impose injustices on others, denying them equal protection under the law.

Without realizing it the founding fathers built a document based on how free citizens should be treated and that 'all citizens' had equal rights because they were not subjects or property by definition, no matter how supremacists misused it, as long as it was consistently interpreted for all people. In actuality there was never a need for the 13th, 14th, or 15th amendment for that matter, because these were people, who's rights were already protected under the constitution, should have never been defined as property to begin with, they were already persons by the only definition that mattered. They just went through the process to save the arguing, which was at that point mute and irrelevant.

Which is where we are now. Debating an issue that is mute and irrelevant.

 

But courts do not hardly pretend people are equal - rights have to be bought thru the legal trade union - and the Supreme Court, ie government, ruled blacks even in free states are sub-humans who could not even approach courts. Slavery wasn't ended by government rule, it was ended by war and American freedom wasn't won by government, it was won by revolution. Nor did the civil war start over slavery directly, but over government power. It was only well later into the war when blacks were needed for the Union and they wanted blacks to revolt in the South was this even proposed. Governments never passed the ERA for women. Freedom in Europe was not obtained thru government. It was obtained by chopping off the heads of government.

There is NO historic support in your ideology that government protects people's freedom. It is government that historically has taken away freedom. It isn't we-the-people who put people in prison. History proves you wrong.

Just about everyone needs a god, a boss as a surrogate parent to control them and tell them what to think, do and don't do. As religion loses influence more and more people are picking government as their new god. Government doesn't make me free. Government only attempts to restrain and control me by threats.

 

Catholics,You know like Pelosi,Biden,Kerry and even Anthony Kennedy of
our Supreme Court are Not married in a Courthouse.Catholics are married in
Catholic Churchs by ordained Priests as Marriage is considered a sacrament.
Which proves as far as Catholics and Catholicism is concerned, ones
church is of higher authority than any Federal or state proclamation.
There is such thing as Natural law.Human beings have inherent God-given rights.Where
common law is concerned with legal tradition.

 

Common law is popular among judges as it traces back to when government had absolute power as did judges. To create unconstitutionally derived power Court reach into "common law." Common law has no legitimacy. Only constitutional and statutory laws are legitimate.

 

What I said was the constitution is there, and if it is used consistently/properly, none of those issues could have been prostituted by fast talking lawyers, and criminal politicians, the way they have been done in the past, or will likely be done in the future. The government shouldn't be threatening your freedom, it is in place to protect that freedom, as it is required to do across the board for everybody. Your rights do not supersede mine and visa versa. People attempting to use the constitution to deny equal protection under the law as it is guaranteed to protect, is the only issue.

 

Struck down, what were they a god? How did they do this striking down? Did they use the proverbial lightning bolt? Those unethical mystical beings in black robes have no ability to strike down anything. Please show anywhere in Article III they can strike anything.

Again where did they get those god like powers to pretend they can rule anything? They offered a convoluted opinion based on the due process clause of Amendment 14 which is an out right joke. Here is the real story:

This has nothing to do with the ability of same sex to form a union, it is all about benefits.

 

No, the legal body empowered to do so.

Determined the constitution does not permit bans on same sex marriage, and ruled accordingly.

Article lll. Read it.

The constitution.

Thankfully, your opinion is meaningless.

​

because the union is pointless without the benefits.

 

Yep, in a nut shell. And if the religious nut jobs would have allowed the implementation of some form of civil union/cohabitation contract that included the same benefits (AKA rights), the word marriage would have been saved.

 

Really and where did they do this? There has never been a controversy over the ability to contract, that was always a constant and a given. The whole issue is benefits, the ones available with a license. More important than whether those supreme mystical beings in black robes changed anything is where they discovered this magical ability to even consider the matter much less there god like demeanor to proclaim to settle a matter by an unconstitutional opinion.

What constitution has been overridden by religious beliefs, are you referring to the incident where Kim Davis has been persecuted supposedly using that which doesn't exist to her right that does. Or would you be referring to the doctrine of separation of church and state that is no where in the constitution.

 

Nice attempt to dodge the question. If you can't name the slave owners your premise fails.

 

A county clerk is a "contitutional officer"? You can read the constition as many times as you want but you won't find any reference to county clerks. Right wing ideologues may try and appoint themselves as a "contitutional officer" but that is just another contrived way of trying to interject right wing ideology into public policy. What if she thought a divorced person should not get married again? Does she get to rule on that also? What if she thought it was wrong for a Christian to marry a Muslim?

 

Mess, yes there is a convoluted mess but that would be the above. First, what was declared unconstitutional? Not Obergefell V Hodges:

Due process, what due process?

So where does due process come into the picture, they had notice and opportunity to be heard and to defend. But what was usurped was the voice of the people. Restrictions by the supreme law of the land are only upon the legislatures, not the people. Increasingly more and more the voice of the people has been squashed by the courts that have no power to override the people.

Now those supreme mystical beings in black robes, pretending to be gods, render many opinions, most that they have no power to render. They render an interruption of a written constitution that needs no interruption by placing small phrases that deem clauses in a separate context and declaring they have power over the people, an usurpation in and of itself.

So when the people pass a law unto their constitution, they have spoken and no legislature nor judicial act can put asunder as has this unconstitutional collection of supreme mystical beings in black robes as so eloquently spoken by one of their own:

 

No government can make one swear an oath much less swear in the name of god. Any office holder can take an affirmation instead of swearing.

Those supreme mystical beings in black robes can't make rules about anything, that is the job of the legislature and they can't make any rules for or against religion. But then when has a little usurpation stopped then in recent history?

There is more than just a fundamental flaw in the whole legal system, not just the courts. When those private club members become public servants, they somehow believe they have the powers of a god, they don't. They have completely stolen the judicial system and perverted it from justice to revenue.

And the people follow along like little lambs to contribute to the mutton stew.

 

Those unable to use or understand reason would agree with you, I don't.

Explain it, if it needs to be explained, then you will not understand as it has been used in context already. But if you can't come up with something to do with the subject of the thread, you fail to qualify for the next round, better luck next time.

 

That is totally incorrect as your prior post only showed her oath of office but all public officials in any government capacity, federal, state or local is required to take the oath of Fidelity by Article VI of the constitution. That oath must be signed and filed with the "County Clerk".

Religious test, not required to attest to "so help me God" if one does not want to.

 

And for the millionth time, the Judges did not create a law, they struck down all laws preventing same sex marriage. Once Maryland had passed approval of same sex marriage marriage by popular vote, it became problematic for the Federal Government to refuse
equal treatment under the law to same sex couples.

No soup for you, one year.