Is Kim Davis wrong? Or is the Supreme Ct wrong about requiring acceptance of same-sex "marriage"?

[Little-Acorn]

The Constitution (Amendment 1) says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

And the 14th amendment said that what applied to the Fed govt, now applies to state and local govts too. Meaning, no govt can make a law as described by the 1st amendment.

A basic tenet of many religions in this country is that homosexuality is a sin, and is forbidden. That was true in George Washington's time, and is just as true now.

If Congress makes a law saying that people (such as county clerks) must accept a homosexual same-sex "marriage", hasn't Congress (and/or the county govt of Rowan County, Kentucky) violated the 1st amendment?

Why did they jail Kim Davis? Sounds like they should have jailed the Congressmen (or county govt officials) who voted for the law instead, and possibly the affirming justices of the Supreme Court too.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Christian Taliban

 

[Little-Acorn]

Christian Taliban

Is there a coherent thought or sentence in there somewhere?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Davis is wrong:

“The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." P.358 U. S. 18.

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it. P. 358 U. S. 18.”

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI, US Constitution

And the Supreme Court is correct:

“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

 

[waltky]

The Supreme Court is wrong...

... the Constitution says nothing about the status of marriage...

... therefore they have nothing within their jurisdiction to base their decision on...

... until legislation is passed - then and only then can they rule on the Constitutionality of the legislation one way or the other...

... it is not in their purview to legislate laws...

... especially since, at present, sexual orientation is not a protected class.

 

[candycorn]

Kim Davis is wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court is wrong...

... the Constitution says nothing about the status of marriage...

... therefore they have nothing within their jurisdiction to base their decision on...

... until legislation is passed - then and only then can they rule on the Constitutionality of the legislation one way or the other...

... it is not in their purview to legislate laws...

... especially since, at present, sexual orientation is not a protected class.

You forgot to cite the amendment to the Constitution repealing Article VI.

Absent such an amendment, this is as a fact of law wrong, subjective, and irrelevant.

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Christian Taliban

There ought to be a counterpart to Godwin's law, that applies to gratuitous comparisons to extreme Islamists the same way way Godwin's Law applies to gratuitous comparisons to Hitler or to Nazis.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Constitution (Amendment 1) says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

And the 14th amendment said that what applied to the Fed govt, now applies to state and local govts too. Meaning, no govt can make a law as described by the 1st amendment.

A basic tenet of many religions in this country is that homosexuality is a sin, and is forbidden. That was true in George Washington's time, and is just as true now.

If Congress makes a law saying that people (such as county clerks) must accept a homosexual same-sex "marriage", hasn't Congress (and/or the county govt of Rowan County, Kentucky) violated the 1st amendment?

Why did they jail Kim Davis? Sounds like they should have jailed the Congressmen (or county govt officials) who voted for the law instead, and possibly the affirming justices of the Supreme Court too.

The Supreme Court was wrong.

Marriage always has been, and always will be, between a man and a woman. To call anything else a marriage does not make it so, and only makes a sick mockery of genuine marriage.

There is nothing in the Constitution which allows or supports the outrageous attempt to redefine marriage to include sick mockeries thereof; and in any case, such a redefinition is nonsense, just as if the court had ruled that a rotifer is an elephant.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Supreme Court is wrong...

... the Constitution says nothing about the status of marriage...

... therefore they have nothing within their jurisdiction to base their decision on...

... until legislation is passed - then and only then can they rule on the Constitutionality of the legislation one way or the other...

... it is not in their purview to legislate laws...

... especially since, at present, sexual orientation is not a protected class.

The very concept of a “protected class”, allegedly supported by the Fourteenth Amendment, is ironic. What the Fourteenth Amendment requires is “equal protection under the law”—a concept which is irreconcilable with the idea of “protected classes”, members of which are given greater protection under the law than those who are not members of such classes.

Even more, bizarre, of course, is the move to extend “protected class” status to various types of immoral sexual perverts, while denying denying not only equal protection, but even a lesser level for protection, to religious faith, even though religion is explicitly mentioned as protected under the First Amendment. The force of government is literally being used to favor evil over good, immorality over morality, madness over reason.

 

[waltky]

While gender is a protected class by legislation...

... sexual orientation as a protected class has yet to be enacted into law.

The legislative function of government is the domain of Congress - not the Supreme Court...

... it is not the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to make law - only to interpret the law as already written.

In cases where there is no law written, then it needs to do so on the side of caution...

... rather than from a standpoint of proactivism when there is no legislative basis for doing so...

... as that is their Constitutionally given function.

 

[Ravi]

She isn't performing a religious ceremony. She is simply a government rubber stamp.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supreme Court is wrong...

... the Constitution says nothing about the status of marriage...

... therefore they have nothing within their jurisdiction to base their decision on...

... until legislation is passed - then and only then can they rule on the Constitutionality of the legislation one way or the other...

... it is not in their purview to legislate laws...

... especially since, at present, sexual orientation is not a protected class.

Wrong. States have laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. The Court struck down those laws as discriminatory.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS is right, Davis is wrong.

 

[waltky]

Yes, they decided that portion based on their Constitutional mandate...

... where they went wrong was to expand that to gay marriages...

... which is extra-judicial and falls outside the parameters of their jurisdiction.

Had they kicked it back to Congress to give Congress a legislative reason for doing what they did, then the Supreme Court would have performed their Constitutionall given function...

... but instead, they went beyond their boundary and imposed their will...

... rather than the will of Congress.

The protected status of gender vs. sexual orientation may be splitting hairs...

... but that is Congress's function to do the haircut - not the Supreme Court.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I understand your reasoning, Walt, but I disagree. Thank you for your thoughtful remarks. Look forward to your rebuttal.

SCOTUS has the power subject to Art III to do such things.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

The Constitution (Amendment 1) says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

And the 14th amendment said that what applied to the Fed govt, now applies to state and local govts too. Meaning, no govt can make a law as described by the 1st amendment.

A basic tenet of many religions in this country is that homosexuality is a sin, and is forbidden. That was true in George Washington's time, and is just as true now.

If Congress makes a law saying that people (such as county clerks) must accept a homosexual same-sex "marriage", hasn't Congress (and/or the county govt of Rowan County, Kentucky) violated the 1st amendment?

Why did they jail Kim Davis? Sounds like they should have jailed the Congressmen (or county govt officials) who voted for the law instead, and possibly the affirming justices of the Supreme Court too.

Excellent post. I agree. Yes, they should be jailed and the justices of the Supreme Court should be in jail too. It is a wicked bunch and I am believing God for His judgment to fall on them and everyone else who was behind it. I pray God's judgment is swift and powerful and that all those who witness it depart from evil and begin to fear the LORD.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, they decided that portion based on their Constitutional mandate...

... where they went wrong was to expand that to gay marriages...

... which is extra-judicial and falls outside the parameters of their jurisdiction.

Had they kicked it back to Congress to give Congress a legislative reason for doing what they did, then the Supreme Court would have performed their Constitutionall given function...

... but instead, they went beyond their boundary and imposed their will...

... rather than the will of Congress.

The protected status of gender vs. sexual orientation may be splitting hairs...

... but that is Congress's function to do the haircut - not the Supreme Court.

Nonsense. Equal protection is equal protection. They struck down laws that violated the equal protection rights of gays.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Supreme Court is wrong...

... the Constitution says nothing about the status of marriage...

... therefore they have nothing within their jurisdiction to base their decision on...

... until legislation is passed - then and only then can they rule on the Constitutionality of the legislation one way or the other...

... it is not in their purview to legislate laws...

... especially since, at present, sexual orientation is not a protected class.

The very concept of a “protected class”, allegedly supported by the Fourteenth Amendment, is ironic. What the Fourteenth Amendment requires is “equal protection under the law”—a concept which is irreconcilable with the idea of “protected classes”, members of which are given greater protection under the law than those who are not members of such classes.

Even more, bizarre, of course, is the move to extend “protected class” status to various types of immoral sexual perverts, while denying denying not only equal protection, but even a lesser level for protection, to religious faith, even though religion is explicitly mentioned as protected under the First Amendment. The force of government is literally being used to favor evil over good, immorality over morality, madness over reason.

Incorrect.

The states are forbidden by the 14th Amendment from seeking to disadvantage a class of persons based solely on who they are, such as disallowing same-sex couples to access marriage law they're eligible to participate in simply because they're gay.