C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
"Two sides to every coin: Kim Davis"
A remarkable example of an epic thread fail.
A remarkable example of an epic thread fail.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Here's the thing. We are a nation of laws. When we become a nation of men, we are done. Finished. The great experiment will fail. Kim Davis should still uphold her oath and obey the law, and we should hold that same expectation for all government officials instead of looking the other way when they don't.
Man should obey the law, not make the law obey man.
You have to love when this stuff can be thrown back at these self-righteous people putting down this lady and to think: it's ALL OVER a freaking piece of paper. here they say, throw her in jail and throw the key away. hell one person wanted to make an example of her. I had visions of them wanting to bury her in a hole up to her neck and stoning her to death, Our society has become hateful and downright vicious all over a piece of PAPER
When Prop 8 was in effect in California, you had clerks outrightly ignoring the law by marrying gay couples. There were no consequences, but they violated the law nonetheless.
Link?
When the Supreme Court upheld the right of citizens to bear arms, clerks in Washington DC refused to issue gun permits. Once again, no consequences,
Link?
Not only was it ignored the court ordered it to be ignored. The will of the people once again overturned.
Not only was it ignored the court ordered it to be ignored. The will of the people once again overturned.
Of course the California Supreme Court ordered Prop 8 to be ignored, it was ruled unconstitutional in Federal court and the SCOTUS allowed that decision to remain in effect.
A request to not issue same-sex marriage licenses should have been turned down.
>>>>
When Prop 8 was in effect in California, you had clerks outrightly ignoring the law by marrying gay couples. There were no consequences, but they violated the law nonetheless. Liberals hailed them as heroes.
When the Supreme Court upheld the right of citizens to bear arms, clerks in Washington DC refused to issue gun permits. Once again, no consequences, and once again, they broke the law and liberals hailed it as an act of courage.
Those states which passed legislation legalizing marijuana did so in the face of established federal laws banning marijuana use. No consequences. None.
When Kate Steinle was murdered San Francisco, it was made clear that the city was one of dozens of "sanctuary cities" across America that do not enforce Federal immigration law. Once again, no consequences. No nothing. Someone died because of the willful noncompliance, because the city chose to let the murderer go instead of handing him over to federal custody. Yet liberals hail these kinds of places. Why?
And then ultimately there's Obama, who completely ignores the Supreme Court and therefore the US Constitution in general, and suffers no consequences for such behavior.
But when we get to the lowly clerk in Kentucky, suddenly the law applies. As it should. I happen to hold both sides accountable to the law. Laws are legal until they are struck down or stayed pending an appeal or what have you and anyone who is anyone should be made to obey the law. Not a difficult concept.
I know, I know, "in Nazi Germany, what Hitler did was legal" and all, but we are not nor will we ever be a country ruled by a genocidal megalomaniac. A great deal (but not all) of our laws are justified and rooted in precedent.
Here's the thing. We are a nation of laws. When we become a nation of men, we are done. Finished. The great experiment will fail. Kim Davis should still uphold her oath and obey the law, and we should hold that same expectation for all government officials instead of looking the other way when they don't.
Man should obey the law, not make the law obey man.
Not only was it ignored the court ordered it to be ignored. The will of the people once again overturned.
Of course the California Supreme Court ordered Prop 8 to be ignored, it was ruled unconstitutional in Federal court and the SCOTUS allowed that decision to remain in effect.
A request to not issue same-sex marriage licenses should have been turned down.
>>>>
Sigh, read the article, they were already issuing licenses before the SCOTUS ruling. If you folks want links then just ignore them then tell us so we don't waste time. Thanks.
Clerks have never been able to marry people. They were forced to issue gun permits. Federal authorities busted a lot of businesses that were legal by state law. Your crap about Obama is just stupid right wing hyperbole. None of the situations you mentioned were allowed to continue. She was warned what would happen just as the previously mentioned situations received warnings. Perhaps she should have done what the other clerks chose to do. Obey the law.
Clerks have never been able to marry people. They were forced to issue gun permits. Federal authorities busted a lot of businesses that were legal by state law. Your crap about Obama is just stupid right wing hyperbole. None of the situations you mentioned were allowed to continue. She was warned what would happen just as the previously mentioned situations received warnings. Perhaps she should have done what the other clerks chose to do. Obey the law.
What about government officials who married gays when the law said they can't? Did you say the same thing? We both know you didn't
Yes it did,but the point ,that is the hypocrisy show by the left,you support for them is no different than the right supporting Davis at least be honest with yourself.All the same sex marriages sanctioned by Mayor Newsom in California were nulled and voided by the courts.
California Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriages Null And Void
Once again, the rule of law ultimately prevailed.
Yes it did,but the point ,that is the hypocrisy show by the left,you support for them is no different than the right supporting Davis at least be honest with yourself.All the same sex marriages sanctioned by Mayor Newsom in California were nulled and voided by the courts.
California Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriages Null And Void
Once again, the rule of law ultimately prevailed.
Yes it did,but the point ,that is the hypocrisy show by the left,you support for them is no different than the right supporting Davis at least be honest with yourself.All the same sex marriages sanctioned by Mayor Newsom in California were nulled and voided by the courts.
California Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriages Null And Void
Once again, the rule of law ultimately prevailed.
You are correct...We support civil disobedience in the pursuit of good and oppose it in the pursuit of evil.
Yes it did,but the point ,that is the hypocrisy show by the left,you support for them is no different than the right supporting Davis at least be honest with yourself.All the same sex marriages sanctioned by Mayor Newsom in California were nulled and voided by the courts.
California Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriages Null And Void
Once again, the rule of law ultimately prevailed.
You are correct...We support civil disobedience in the pursuit of good and oppose it in the pursuit of evil.
So just don't pretend your issue is supporting the law, it clearly isn't. I think she should be fired, but my standards don't constantly change like yours do
I never support disobeying a law, I support changing ones I disagree with.
You have to love when this stuff can be thrown back at these self-righteous people putting down this lady and to think: it's ALL OVER a freaking piece of paper. here they say, throw her in jail and throw the key away. hell one person wanted to make an example of her. I had visions of them wanting to bury her in a hole up to her neck and stoning her to death, Our society has become hateful and downright vicious all over a piece of PAPER
I never support disobeying a law, I support changing ones I disagree with.
But you see dear, you aren't a majority. The reason people are heated about this gay-cult marriage crap is that we weren't consulted about the law changing. Your 5 pocket Justices forced that down everyone's throats.I never support disobeying a law, I support changing ones I disagree with.
When Prop 8 was in effect in California, you had clerks outrightly ignoring the law by marrying gay couples. There were no consequences, but they violated the law nonetheless. Liberals hailed them as heroes.
When the Supreme Court upheld the right of citizens to bear arms, clerks in Washington DC refused to issue gun permits. Once again, no consequences, and once again, they broke the law and liberals hailed it as an act of courage.
Those states which passed legislation legalizing marijuana did so in the face of established federal laws banning marijuana use. No consequences. None.
When Kate Steinle was murdered San Francisco, it was made clear that the city was one of dozens of "sanctuary cities" across America that do not enforce Federal immigration law. Once again, no consequences. No nothing. Someone died because of the willful noncompliance, because the city chose to let the murderer go instead of handing him over to federal custody. Yet liberals hail these kinds of places. Why?
And then ultimately there's Obama, who completely ignores the Supreme Court and therefore the US Constitution in general, and suffers no consequences for such behavior.
But when we get to the lowly clerk in Kentucky, suddenly the law applies. As it should. I happen to hold both sides accountable to the law. Laws are legal until they are struck down or stayed pending an appeal or what have you and anyone who is anyone should be made to obey the law. Not a difficult concept.
I know, I know, "in Nazi Germany, what Hitler did was legal" and all, but we are not nor will we ever be a country ruled by a genocidal megalomaniac. A great deal (but not all) of our laws are justified and rooted in precedent.
Here's the thing. We are a nation of laws. When we become a nation of men, we are done. Finished. The great experiment will fail. Kim Davis should still uphold her oath and obey the law, and we should hold that same expectation for all government officials instead of looking the other way when they don't.
Man should obey the law, not make the law obey man.