Baptist Pastor from Florida rips Kim Davis a new one.

[bodecea]

Anyone can go on facebook or any where else on-line and claim to be a pastor or what ever else they want to claim. It does not make it true.
This guy does not sound like any pastor or true Christian let alone a Baptist.
He sounds more like an activist.

Here he is...

View attachment 50114

And here's a link to the church website. You can call for verification.

mccormick road baptist church | Who We Are

(407) 886-4957

Ok so he is a real preacher.
I don't think that he knows she is a new Christian or he would not have said that about her.

What was she before she was this so-called "new christian"?

 

[peach174]

Anyone can go on facebook or any where else on-line and claim to be a pastor or what ever else they want to claim. It does not make it true.
This guy does not sound like any pastor or true Christian let alone a Baptist.
He sounds more like an activist.

Why? Because he is not bigoted enough for you?

Talk about hate. whew- eee !
NO because he did not know that she is a new Christian and that her past was forgiven when she took Christ as her savior and her sins were forgiven.

Oh, I love this form of argumentation. It however, has nothing to do with it, because he is criticizing her CURRENT behavior, long after she was "saved".

LOL

He was criticizing her previous marriages.

 

[peach174]

Anyone can go on facebook or any where else on-line and claim to be a pastor or what ever else they want to claim. It does not make it true.
This guy does not sound like any pastor or true Christian let alone a Baptist.
He sounds more like an activist.

Here he is...

View attachment 50114

And here's a link to the church website. You can call for verification.

mccormick road baptist church | Who We Are

(407) 886-4957

Ok so he is a real preacher.
I don't think that he knows she is a new Christian or he would not have said that about her.

What was she before she was this so-called "new christian"?

A sinner just like all of us are before we accept Christ.

 

[bodecea]

Wrong.
KY state constitution, among many many others, defined marriage as "between one man and one woman." The USSC threw out that defintiion. T hat is called redefining marriage.
You are a dunce.

And he's a liar as well. The Supreme Court trotted out there and changed the definition of Kentucky's marriage law as well as some other states and then turned around and went off to dine on lobster tail leaving a lot of local and state governmental officials subject to jail and lawsuits instead of even making a minor attempt at staving off the collateral damages stemming from their decision. That clerk could have been sued by some other party for issuing the licenses in violation of Kentucky law. The state attorney general could have arrested her for issuing the licenses to same-sex couples. She was caught in the crosshairs. She was doomed to violate either one law or another. It should be the Court's responsibility to foresee things like this. The state of Kentucky should have gone to jail if anyone needed to - not that little county clerk.

You claim;
"That clerk could have been sued by some other party for issuing the licenses in violation of Kentucky law. The state attorney general could have arrested her for issuing the licenses to same-sex couples. She was caught in the crosshairs. She was doomed to violate either one law or another. It should be the Court's responsibility to foresee things like this." [Emphasis Added]

The Supremacy clause, Article V, Clause 2, of the Constitution made the Kentucky statute in question MOOT the moment the Supremes released their decision in Obergefell v. Hodges last June 26th. There would have been no jeopardy what so ever attached to Kim Davis if she had just done her sworn duty and issued those licenses to any same sex couples requesting one.

You claim. I submit she fulfilled her sworn duty as pertaining to the law she swore to uphold when she took office. The law in effect in Kentucky at the time she took office was the law she took an oath to uphold. The law was changed dummox.

The law is often changed. This is why we have mechanisms in the US Constitution to allow for changes in the law. Those who cannot adapt to change have no business being in the position of a Kim Davis to begin with.

75% of the voters thought so. What happened was 75% of the voters had their votes vacated while 25% had their votes validated. Gays and lesbians only make up about 6 or 7 per cent of the total population. Get real. You'll never have 100% agreement on any issue but the majority should prevail.

So...when the majority said that there should be Jim Crow laws...they should prevail?

 

[the_human_being]

In all fairness, some truth of the facts should be presented here. Ms. Davis won her election to County Clerk by an overwhelming majority of the voters of her county. At the time of her election to office, marriage was pretty much defined as the union between one man and one woman. The Supreme Court decision redefining marriage has only recently been given. The fact still remains that the Kentucky Legislature still has not changed that state's law defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Now, since she was elected by the people of her County to uphold the laws of their county and the state of Kentucky, would she not be violating her oath of office were she to issue licenses in direct conflict with the law of her county and her state? She even went so far as to ask that judge who sentenced her to jail "What law am I violating here?" and she received no answer to her question. The simple fact is that she is an official of her county and of her state and is sworn to uphold their law.

You make a pretty nice argument, and you word it very well, too. But before she is duty sworn to uphold the laws or her state, she is first duty sworn to uphold the US Constitution, and by extension, the interpretation of law that comes from the US Supreme Court. This issue of federal vs. state was cleared up a long, long, long time ago.

So she runs the risk of being placed under arrest by the governor of Kentucky if she violates the Kentucky law? I say the judge should have ordered the Kentucky legislature to convene and pass legislation that coincides with Federal Law in order to prevent just such conflicts as these from occurring. What the Supreme Court did was make new law that voided the will of the people in several states. That judge over-reached, even the ACLU said so.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court invalidated state measures that violated the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans, making no 'new law,' to maintain that it did is a lie.

Nor was the will of the people 'voided,' to maintain that it was is also a lie.

The residents of the states that passed un-Constitutional measures hostile to gay American never had the authority to deny same-sex couples their inalienable rights – one does not forfeit his inalienable rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence; that the Supreme Court invalidated those measures repugnant to the Constitution is the fault of the states that enacted them, they have only themselves to blame.

Whatever happened to government by the people, for the people, and of the people? Are five Supreme Court justices "the people"? 75% of Kentucky voters passed the Kentucky Defense of Marriage Law by majority vote. It was the will of the majority - not the few. Why bother to vote on anything? Just have five justices make law for all.

This reminds me of how pissed off Obama was when Rick Perry went down to his Texas southern border to secure it when Obama would not. Obama wouldn't uphold Federal Law forcing Rick Perry to do it.

The Supreme Court is part of our government...one third. But answer me this.....is we do not have the Supreme Court holding Judicial Review....how do you suggest we get rid of unConstitutional laws in this country?

What unconstitutional laws are you speaking of? State's rights? Majority rule of law? Voters rights? I already stated that if the votes of 75% of the people can be voided by 5 justices and the sovereignty of a state can be nullified by these same 5 justices, then simply allow these 5 justices to decided and impose all the law upon all the people and all the states and just send Congress and all the state legislatures home.

 

[bodecea]

Anyone can go on facebook or any where else on-line and claim to be a pastor or what ever else they want to claim. It does not make it true.
This guy does not sound like any pastor or true Christian let alone a Baptist.
He sounds more like an activist.

Why? Because he is not bigoted enough for you?

Talk about hate. whew- eee !
NO because he did not know that she is a new Christian and that her past was forgiven when she took Christ as her savior and her sins were forgiven.

What was she before she was a "new christian"? A muslim?

 

[the_human_being]

And he's a liar as well. The Supreme Court trotted out there and changed the definition of Kentucky's marriage law as well as some other states and then turned around and went off to dine on lobster tail leaving a lot of local and state governmental officials subject to jail and lawsuits instead of even making a minor attempt at staving off the collateral damages stemming from their decision. That clerk could have been sued by some other party for issuing the licenses in violation of Kentucky law. The state attorney general could have arrested her for issuing the licenses to same-sex couples. She was caught in the crosshairs. She was doomed to violate either one law or another. It should be the Court's responsibility to foresee things like this. The state of Kentucky should have gone to jail if anyone needed to - not that little county clerk.

You claim;
"That clerk could have been sued by some other party for issuing the licenses in violation of Kentucky law. The state attorney general could have arrested her for issuing the licenses to same-sex couples. She was caught in the crosshairs. She was doomed to violate either one law or another. It should be the Court's responsibility to foresee things like this." [Emphasis Added]

The Supremacy clause, Article V, Clause 2, of the Constitution made the Kentucky statute in question MOOT the moment the Supremes released their decision in Obergefell v. Hodges last June 26th. There would have been no jeopardy what so ever attached to Kim Davis if she had just done her sworn duty and issued those licenses to any same sex couples requesting one.

You claim. I submit she fulfilled her sworn duty as pertaining to the law she swore to uphold when she took office. The law in effect in Kentucky at the time she took office was the law she took an oath to uphold. The law was changed dummox.

The law is often changed. This is why we have mechanisms in the US Constitution to allow for changes in the law. Those who cannot adapt to change have no business being in the position of a Kim Davis to begin with.

75% of the voters thought so. What happened was 75% of the voters had their votes vacated while 25% had their votes validated. Gays and lesbians only make up about 6 or 7 per cent of the total population. Get real. You'll never have 100% agreement on any issue but the majority should prevail.

So...when the majority said that there should be Jim Crow laws...they should prevail?

I wouldn't have any problem with it if the majority actually supported it.

 

[bodecea]

Baptist Pastor Crushes Kim Davis And The Hypocrisy Of His Fellow Evangelicals In Open Letter


The letter:

"Since I am a pastor of a southern Baptist church please allow me to weigh in on the case of Kim Davis, the lady in Kentucky who refuses to issue a marriage licenses to a same sex couple.

First: This is not a case of the government forcing anyone to violate their religious belief. She is free to quit her job. If she quits her job to honor God surely God would take care of her.

Second: This is not a case of someone trying to uphold the sanctity of marriage. If she wanted to uphold the sanctity of marriage she should not have been married four different times. If she is worried about her name being affixed to a marriage license that goes against a biblical definition of marriage, she should not have her name on the last three marriage licenses given to her.

Third: This seems to be a case of someone looking to cash in on the religious right. Churches all across the south will throw money at her to come and tell congregations how the evil American government put her in jail because of her faith in Jesus.

This is why we are losing.

This is why people have such disdain for evangelicals.

Not because we disagree but because we don’t take the bible seriously. If ever there was a case of “he who is without sin cast the first stone”, this is it. If ever there was a “take the log out of your eye” moment, this is it.

We must stop looking to the government to make America a Christian utopia. Our kingdom is not of this world.

We must abandon all thoughts of fixing others and let Jesus fix us.

If we want sanctity of marriage then stop cheating, stop having affairs, stop looking at porn, stop getting divorces. That is the way for the church to stand up for the biblical definition of marriage, not by someone martyring their self-righteous self."

(non-copyright material, can be published in its entirety)

Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin. He's a Christian and a Pastor. She is not a Pastor. So, who is right, here?

Hmmmm???

In all fairness, some truth of the facts should be presented here. Ms. Davis won her election to County Clerk by an overwhelming majority of the voters of her county. At the time of her election to office, marriage was pretty much defined as the union between one man and one woman. The Supreme Court decision redefining marriage has only recently been given. The fact still remains that the Kentucky Legislature still has not changed that state's law defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Now, since she was elected by the people of her County to uphold the laws of their county and the state of Kentucky, would she not be violating her oath of office were she to issue licenses in direct conflict with the law of her county and her state? She even went so far as to ask that judge who sentenced her to jail "What law am I violating here?" and she received no answer to her question. The simple fact is that she is an official of her county and of her state and is sworn to uphold their law.

#1. The Kentucky legislature doesn't have to change anything...the part of their marriage laws that prevents same sex marriage is simply no longer enforceable.
#2. So...if you are saying that someone in a government job doesn't have to follow laws that come after they are elected...that means all Presidents and Governors do not have to follow any changes to laws made after they are already in office. Is that what you want to say is how it is done here? Are you really that foolish?

No. What I'm saying is the Kentucky Defense of Marriage law is still on the books. It has not been removed by the duly elected legislatures of Kentucky.

It is unenforceable now.

 

[bodecea]

Anyone can go on facebook or any where else on-line and claim to be a pastor or what ever else they want to claim. It does not make it true.
This guy does not sound like any pastor or true Christian let alone a Baptist.
He sounds more like an activist.

Here he is...

View attachment 50114

And here's a link to the church website. You can call for verification.

mccormick road baptist church | Who We Are

(407) 886-4957

Ok so he is a real preacher.
I don't think that he knows she is a new Christian or he would not have said that about her.

What was she before she was this so-called "new christian"?

A sinner just like all of us are before we accept Christ.

You don't know, do you? What if she already was a christian...but not the "right kind" of christian? I know that evangelicals do that all the time.....accusing people such as catholics of not really being christians....which is arrogant "holier than thou" crap that drives people away.

 

[bodecea]

You make a pretty nice argument, and you word it very well, too. But before she is duty sworn to uphold the laws or her state, she is first duty sworn to uphold the US Constitution, and by extension, the interpretation of law that comes from the US Supreme Court. This issue of federal vs. state was cleared up a long, long, long time ago.

So she runs the risk of being placed under arrest by the governor of Kentucky if she violates the Kentucky law? I say the judge should have ordered the Kentucky legislature to convene and pass legislation that coincides with Federal Law in order to prevent just such conflicts as these from occurring. What the Supreme Court did was make new law that voided the will of the people in several states. That judge over-reached, even the ACLU said so.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court invalidated state measures that violated the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans, making no 'new law,' to maintain that it did is a lie.

Nor was the will of the people 'voided,' to maintain that it was is also a lie.

The residents of the states that passed un-Constitutional measures hostile to gay American never had the authority to deny same-sex couples their inalienable rights – one does not forfeit his inalienable rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence; that the Supreme Court invalidated those measures repugnant to the Constitution is the fault of the states that enacted them, they have only themselves to blame.

Whatever happened to government by the people, for the people, and of the people? Are five Supreme Court justices "the people"? 75% of Kentucky voters passed the Kentucky Defense of Marriage Law by majority vote. It was the will of the majority - not the few. Why bother to vote on anything? Just have five justices make law for all.

This reminds me of how pissed off Obama was when Rick Perry went down to his Texas southern border to secure it when Obama would not. Obama wouldn't uphold Federal Law forcing Rick Perry to do it.

The Supreme Court is part of our government...one third. But answer me this.....is we do not have the Supreme Court holding Judicial Review....how do you suggest we get rid of unConstitutional laws in this country?

What unconstitutional laws are you speaking of? State's rights? Majority rule of law? Voters rights? I already stated that if the votes of 75% of the people can be voided by 5 justices and the sovereignty of a state can be nullified by these same 5 justices, then simply allow these 5 justices to decided and impose all the law upon all the people and all the states and just send Congress and all the state legislatures home.

So if 75% of the people pass a law outlawing Islam...who will there be to point out and enforce the 1st Amendment? What if 75% of the people in a state pass a law outlawing hand guns...who will there be to point out and enforce the 2nd Amendment?

 

[the_human_being]

Baptist Pastor Crushes Kim Davis And The Hypocrisy Of His Fellow Evangelicals In Open Letter


The letter:

"Since I am a pastor of a southern Baptist church please allow me to weigh in on the case of Kim Davis, the lady in Kentucky who refuses to issue a marriage licenses to a same sex couple.

First: This is not a case of the government forcing anyone to violate their religious belief. She is free to quit her job. If she quits her job to honor God surely God would take care of her.

Second: This is not a case of someone trying to uphold the sanctity of marriage. If she wanted to uphold the sanctity of marriage she should not have been married four different times. If she is worried about her name being affixed to a marriage license that goes against a biblical definition of marriage, she should not have her name on the last three marriage licenses given to her.

Third: This seems to be a case of someone looking to cash in on the religious right. Churches all across the south will throw money at her to come and tell congregations how the evil American government put her in jail because of her faith in Jesus.

This is why we are losing.

This is why people have such disdain for evangelicals.

Not because we disagree but because we don’t take the bible seriously. If ever there was a case of “he who is without sin cast the first stone”, this is it. If ever there was a “take the log out of your eye” moment, this is it.

We must stop looking to the government to make America a Christian utopia. Our kingdom is not of this world.

We must abandon all thoughts of fixing others and let Jesus fix us.

If we want sanctity of marriage then stop cheating, stop having affairs, stop looking at porn, stop getting divorces. That is the way for the church to stand up for the biblical definition of marriage, not by someone martyring their self-righteous self."

(non-copyright material, can be published in its entirety)

Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin. He's a Christian and a Pastor. She is not a Pastor. So, who is right, here?

Hmmmm???

In all fairness, some truth of the facts should be presented here. Ms. Davis won her election to County Clerk by an overwhelming majority of the voters of her county. At the time of her election to office, marriage was pretty much defined as the union between one man and one woman. The Supreme Court decision redefining marriage has only recently been given. The fact still remains that the Kentucky Legislature still has not changed that state's law defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Now, since she was elected by the people of her County to uphold the laws of their county and the state of Kentucky, would she not be violating her oath of office were she to issue licenses in direct conflict with the law of her county and her state? She even went so far as to ask that judge who sentenced her to jail "What law am I violating here?" and she received no answer to her question. The simple fact is that she is an official of her county and of her state and is sworn to uphold their law.

#1. The Kentucky legislature doesn't have to change anything...the part of their marriage laws that prevents same sex marriage is simply no longer enforceable.
#2. So...if you are saying that someone in a government job doesn't have to follow laws that come after they are elected...that means all Presidents and Governors do not have to follow any changes to laws made after they are already in office. Is that what you want to say is how it is done here? Are you really that foolish?

No. What I'm saying is the Kentucky Defense of Marriage law is still on the books. It has not been removed by the duly elected legislatures of Kentucky.

It is unenforceable now.

Agreed but it was so badly handled that it will come back to bite them and this country for a long time. That decision has opened a Pandora's box. Very poorly handled by the Supreme Court.

 

[bodecea]

You claim;
"That clerk could have been sued by some other party for issuing the licenses in violation of Kentucky law. The state attorney general could have arrested her for issuing the licenses to same-sex couples. She was caught in the crosshairs. She was doomed to violate either one law or another. It should be the Court's responsibility to foresee things like this." [Emphasis Added]

The Supremacy clause, Article V, Clause 2, of the Constitution made the Kentucky statute in question MOOT the moment the Supremes released their decision in Obergefell v. Hodges last June 26th. There would have been no jeopardy what so ever attached to Kim Davis if she had just done her sworn duty and issued those licenses to any same sex couples requesting one.

You claim. I submit she fulfilled her sworn duty as pertaining to the law she swore to uphold when she took office. The law in effect in Kentucky at the time she took office was the law she took an oath to uphold. The law was changed dummox.

The law is often changed. This is why we have mechanisms in the US Constitution to allow for changes in the law. Those who cannot adapt to change have no business being in the position of a Kim Davis to begin with.

75% of the voters thought so. What happened was 75% of the voters had their votes vacated while 25% had their votes validated. Gays and lesbians only make up about 6 or 7 per cent of the total population. Get real. You'll never have 100% agreement on any issue but the majority should prevail.

So...when the majority said that there should be Jim Crow laws...they should prevail?

I wouldn't have any problem with it if the majority actually supported it.

And.....................there you have it folks. The Bill of Rights and civil rights means nothing to this poster.

 

[bodecea]

Baptist Pastor Crushes Kim Davis And The Hypocrisy Of His Fellow Evangelicals In Open Letter


The letter:

"Since I am a pastor of a southern Baptist church please allow me to weigh in on the case of Kim Davis, the lady in Kentucky who refuses to issue a marriage licenses to a same sex couple.

First: This is not a case of the government forcing anyone to violate their religious belief. She is free to quit her job. If she quits her job to honor God surely God would take care of her.

Second: This is not a case of someone trying to uphold the sanctity of marriage. If she wanted to uphold the sanctity of marriage she should not have been married four different times. If she is worried about her name being affixed to a marriage license that goes against a biblical definition of marriage, she should not have her name on the last three marriage licenses given to her.

Third: This seems to be a case of someone looking to cash in on the religious right. Churches all across the south will throw money at her to come and tell congregations how the evil American government put her in jail because of her faith in Jesus.

This is why we are losing.

This is why people have such disdain for evangelicals.

Not because we disagree but because we don’t take the bible seriously. If ever there was a case of “he who is without sin cast the first stone”, this is it. If ever there was a “take the log out of your eye” moment, this is it.

We must stop looking to the government to make America a Christian utopia. Our kingdom is not of this world.

We must abandon all thoughts of fixing others and let Jesus fix us.

If we want sanctity of marriage then stop cheating, stop having affairs, stop looking at porn, stop getting divorces. That is the way for the church to stand up for the biblical definition of marriage, not by someone martyring their self-righteous self."

(non-copyright material, can be published in its entirety)

Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin. He's a Christian and a Pastor. She is not a Pastor. So, who is right, here?

Hmmmm???

In all fairness, some truth of the facts should be presented here. Ms. Davis won her election to County Clerk by an overwhelming majority of the voters of her county. At the time of her election to office, marriage was pretty much defined as the union between one man and one woman. The Supreme Court decision redefining marriage has only recently been given. The fact still remains that the Kentucky Legislature still has not changed that state's law defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Now, since she was elected by the people of her County to uphold the laws of their county and the state of Kentucky, would she not be violating her oath of office were she to issue licenses in direct conflict with the law of her county and her state? She even went so far as to ask that judge who sentenced her to jail "What law am I violating here?" and she received no answer to her question. The simple fact is that she is an official of her county and of her state and is sworn to uphold their law.

#1. The Kentucky legislature doesn't have to change anything...the part of their marriage laws that prevents same sex marriage is simply no longer enforceable.
#2. So...if you are saying that someone in a government job doesn't have to follow laws that come after they are elected...that means all Presidents and Governors do not have to follow any changes to laws made after they are already in office. Is that what you want to say is how it is done here? Are you really that foolish?

No. What I'm saying is the Kentucky Defense of Marriage law is still on the books. It has not been removed by the duly elected legislatures of Kentucky.

It is unenforceable now.

Agreed but it was so badly handled that it will come back to bite them and this country for a long time. That decision has opened a Pandora's box. Very poorly handled by the Supreme Court.

What exactly was "badly handled" about using the court system in this country like the Constitution intended?

 

[Bonzi]

Baptist Pastor Crushes Kim Davis And The Hypocrisy Of His Fellow Evangelicals In Open Letter


The letter:

"Since I am a pastor of a southern Baptist church please allow me to weigh in on the case of Kim Davis, the lady in Kentucky who refuses to issue a marriage licenses to a same sex couple.

First: This is not a case of the government forcing anyone to violate their religious belief. She is free to quit her job. If she quits her job to honor God surely God would take care of her.

Second: This is not a case of someone trying to uphold the sanctity of marriage. If she wanted to uphold the sanctity of marriage she should not have been married four different times. If she is worried about her name being affixed to a marriage license that goes against a biblical definition of marriage, she should not have her name on the last three marriage licenses given to her.

Third: This seems to be a case of someone looking to cash in on the religious right. Churches all across the south will throw money at her to come and tell congregations how the evil American government put her in jail because of her faith in Jesus.

This is why we are losing.

This is why people have such disdain for evangelicals.

Not because we disagree but because we don’t take the bible seriously. If ever there was a case of “he who is without sin cast the first stone”, this is it. If ever there was a “take the log out of your eye” moment, this is it.

We must stop looking to the government to make America a Christian utopia. Our kingdom is not of this world.

We must abandon all thoughts of fixing others and let Jesus fix us.

If we want sanctity of marriage then stop cheating, stop having affairs, stop looking at porn, stop getting divorces. That is the way for the church to stand up for the biblical definition of marriage, not by someone martyring their self-righteous self."

(non-copyright material, can be published in its entirety)

Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin. He's a Christian and a Pastor. She is not a Pastor. So, who is right, here?

Hmmmm???

My husband said she is making Christian's look bad.
Either way, I don't think it's appropriate for Pastor's to be weighing in on issues like this.
I hate when the Pastor's and teacher's bring these issues up in Church. Not appropriate.

 

[the_human_being]

So she runs the risk of being placed under arrest by the governor of Kentucky if she violates the Kentucky law? I say the judge should have ordered the Kentucky legislature to convene and pass legislation that coincides with Federal Law in order to prevent just such conflicts as these from occurring. What the Supreme Court did was make new law that voided the will of the people in several states. That judge over-reached, even the ACLU said so.

Wrong.

The Supreme Court invalidated state measures that violated the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans, making no 'new law,' to maintain that it did is a lie.

Nor was the will of the people 'voided,' to maintain that it was is also a lie.

The residents of the states that passed un-Constitutional measures hostile to gay American never had the authority to deny same-sex couples their inalienable rights – one does not forfeit his inalienable rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence; that the Supreme Court invalidated those measures repugnant to the Constitution is the fault of the states that enacted them, they have only themselves to blame.

Whatever happened to government by the people, for the people, and of the people? Are five Supreme Court justices "the people"? 75% of Kentucky voters passed the Kentucky Defense of Marriage Law by majority vote. It was the will of the majority - not the few. Why bother to vote on anything? Just have five justices make law for all.

This reminds me of how pissed off Obama was when Rick Perry went down to his Texas southern border to secure it when Obama would not. Obama wouldn't uphold Federal Law forcing Rick Perry to do it.

The Supreme Court is part of our government...one third. But answer me this.....is we do not have the Supreme Court holding Judicial Review....how do you suggest we get rid of unConstitutional laws in this country?

What unconstitutional laws are you speaking of? State's rights? Majority rule of law? Voters rights? I already stated that if the votes of 75% of the people can be voided by 5 justices and the sovereignty of a state can be nullified by these same 5 justices, then simply allow these 5 justices to decided and impose all the law upon all the people and all the states and just send Congress and all the state legislatures home.

So if 75% of the people pass a law outlawing Islam...who will there be to point out and enforce the 1st Amendment? What if 75% of the people in a state pass a law outlawing hand guns...who will there be to point out and enforce the 2nd Amendment?

You're rambling on and on here. I've already said to let the 5 justices make and enforce all the laws. You sound like a stuck record needle.

 

[the_human_being]

In all fairness, some truth of the facts should be presented here. Ms. Davis won her election to County Clerk by an overwhelming majority of the voters of her county. At the time of her election to office, marriage was pretty much defined as the union between one man and one woman. The Supreme Court decision redefining marriage has only recently been given. The fact still remains that the Kentucky Legislature still has not changed that state's law defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Now, since she was elected by the people of her County to uphold the laws of their county and the state of Kentucky, would she not be violating her oath of office were she to issue licenses in direct conflict with the law of her county and her state? She even went so far as to ask that judge who sentenced her to jail "What law am I violating here?" and she received no answer to her question. The simple fact is that she is an official of her county and of her state and is sworn to uphold their law.

#1. The Kentucky legislature doesn't have to change anything...the part of their marriage laws that prevents same sex marriage is simply no longer enforceable.
#2. So...if you are saying that someone in a government job doesn't have to follow laws that come after they are elected...that means all Presidents and Governors do not have to follow any changes to laws made after they are already in office. Is that what you want to say is how it is done here? Are you really that foolish?

No. What I'm saying is the Kentucky Defense of Marriage law is still on the books. It has not been removed by the duly elected legislatures of Kentucky.

It is unenforceable now.

Agreed but it was so badly handled that it will come back to bite them and this country for a long time. That decision has opened a Pandora's box. Very poorly handled by the Supreme Court.

What exactly was "badly handled" about using the court system in this country like the Constitution intended?

Are you ever lucid? The collateral effects of their decision was not thought out and attended to.

 

[HenryBHough]

Pity some of the progenitors of our liberal contingent were not also liberal - they might have enjoyed the great hobby of aborting and the world would be a far better place today.

 

[peach174]

Anyone can go on facebook or any where else on-line and claim to be a pastor or what ever else they want to claim. It does not make it true.
This guy does not sound like any pastor or true Christian let alone a Baptist.
He sounds more like an activist.

Here he is...

View attachment 50114

And here's a link to the church website. You can call for verification.

mccormick road baptist church | Who We Are

(407) 886-4957

Ok so he is a real preacher.
I don't think that he knows she is a new Christian or he would not have said that about her.

What was she before she was this so-called "new christian"?

A sinner just like all of us are before we accept Christ.

You don't know, do you? What if she already was a christian...but not the "right kind" of christian? I know that evangelicals do that all the time.....accusing people such as catholics of not really being christians....which is arrogant "holier than thou" crap that drives people away.

Not this one evangelical.
All who accept Christ are Christians in my book.
The Bible says all are sinners and that Christ died on the cross for our sins.
If you want to question written articles about her becoming a Christian 4 years ago then that is your right.

 

[bodecea]

Wrong.

The Supreme Court invalidated state measures that violated the due process and equal protection rights of gay Americans, making no 'new law,' to maintain that it did is a lie.

Nor was the will of the people 'voided,' to maintain that it was is also a lie.

The residents of the states that passed un-Constitutional measures hostile to gay American never had the authority to deny same-sex couples their inalienable rights – one does not forfeit his inalienable rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence; that the Supreme Court invalidated those measures repugnant to the Constitution is the fault of the states that enacted them, they have only themselves to blame.

Whatever happened to government by the people, for the people, and of the people? Are five Supreme Court justices "the people"? 75% of Kentucky voters passed the Kentucky Defense of Marriage Law by majority vote. It was the will of the majority - not the few. Why bother to vote on anything? Just have five justices make law for all.

This reminds me of how pissed off Obama was when Rick Perry went down to his Texas southern border to secure it when Obama would not. Obama wouldn't uphold Federal Law forcing Rick Perry to do it.

The Supreme Court is part of our government...one third. But answer me this.....is we do not have the Supreme Court holding Judicial Review....how do you suggest we get rid of unConstitutional laws in this country?

What unconstitutional laws are you speaking of? State's rights? Majority rule of law? Voters rights? I already stated that if the votes of 75% of the people can be voided by 5 justices and the sovereignty of a state can be nullified by these same 5 justices, then simply allow these 5 justices to decided and impose all the law upon all the people and all the states and just send Congress and all the state legislatures home.

So if 75% of the people pass a law outlawing Islam...who will there be to point out and enforce the 1st Amendment? What if 75% of the people in a state pass a law outlawing hand guns...who will there be to point out and enforce the 2nd Amendment?

You're rambling on and on here. I've already said to let the 5 justices make and enforce all the laws. You sound like a stuck record needle.

5 Justices do not MAKE the law...The Congress does that. 5 Justices do not enforce the laws, that is what the Executive Branch does. I am not rambling at all, I am schooling you on how the U.S. government works and how it does not work.

 

[the_human_being]

You claim. I submit she fulfilled her sworn duty as pertaining to the law she swore to uphold when she took office. The law in effect in Kentucky at the time she took office was the law she took an oath to uphold. The law was changed dummox.

The law is often changed. This is why we have mechanisms in the US Constitution to allow for changes in the law. Those who cannot adapt to change have no business being in the position of a Kim Davis to begin with.

75% of the voters thought so. What happened was 75% of the voters had their votes vacated while 25% had their votes validated. Gays and lesbians only make up about 6 or 7 per cent of the total population. Get real. You'll never have 100% agreement on any issue but the majority should prevail.

So...when the majority said that there should be Jim Crow laws...they should prevail?

I wouldn't have any problem with it if the majority actually supported it.

And.....................there you have it folks. The Bill of Rights and civil rights means nothing to this poster.

You feel better now? Good. The rights of the majority mean nothing to you - just so you have your way. You're just another "victim", right?