View Single Post
Old 08-19-2016   #8
Im super cereal!
Funk*Sonic*7's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Randomly by chance out of nowhere, b/c that's more plausible
Posts: 3,748
Rep Power: 60
Funk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond reputeFunk*Sonic*7 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Case Closed - Kim Davis Has Won the Fight for Religious Freedom Aug 19, 2016

SCOTUS issues opinions as a co-equal branch. The only way to properly read Article III is with the words of the Founders as the backdrop. Misreading it makes SCOTUS an oligarchy. With the words of the Founders you understand it as the weakest branch, not the strongest -- which is how most law schools improperly teach it to be. Today's law schools, after all, are a product of the regressives (better known as progressives).
While lawyers are taught to consider legislative intent regarding statutes, the Founders' intent is completely ignored.

Many people who are or have conceded that what the Supreme Court decides is "law of the land" are simply wrong in many cases.

Kim Davis hasn't or didn't break any law. As a matter of fact, she was/is the one following her oath and the law. See Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 402.990:

Any clerk who knowingly issues a marriage license in violation of KRS Chapter 402 shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Any clerk who knowingly issues a marriage license to any persons prohibited by KRS Chapter 402 from marrying shall be fined $500 to $1,000 and removed from office by the judgment of the court in which convicted (KRS 402.990).

And so what would be a violation of KRS Chapter 402? Oh, well if the clerk issued a license to known relatives, someone who already has a living spouse, someone underage, AND to couples of the same sex.

Read the law:

In Kentucky only persons of the opposite sex may enter into marriage. See Elkhorn Coal Corporation v. Tackett, Ky., 49 S.W.2d 571, 573 (1932). Thus in Jones v. Hallahan, Ky., 501 S.W.2d 588 (1973), the court held that the attempted marriage between two women was not a valid marriage since by being of the same sex they were incapable of entering into a "marriage” as the term is defined by common usage. The court concluded that it could find “no constitutional sanction or protection of the right of marriage between persons of the same sex.”

As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.

Effective: July 15, 1998
History: Created 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 258, sec. 4, effective July 15, 1998.

For those unfamiliar with Kentucky law, and for all of those suggesting that Mrs. Davis should obey the "law" and just have quit...

Here is the law in Kentucky:
Kentucky Constitution Section 233A
Valid or recognized marriage -- Legal status of unmarried individuals.
Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized.
Text as Ratified on: November 2, 2004.
History: Creation proposed by 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 128, sec. 1.

There is no right to marriage -- same sex "marriage," man-woman marriage -- guaranteed in the Constitution. In fact, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at all, which means the federal government has no role in marriage as a construct.

Per the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Because the Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority with regards to marriage, the Tenth Amendment explicitly leaves that power with the individual states. Therefore, there is no law in the U.S. Constitution regarding marriage and there is no law in Kentucky that says clerks must issue licenses to persons caught up in and engaging in homosexual practice.

Same sex "marriage" is forbidden by the Kentucky state's Constitution:

Kentucky constitution Section 233A. Valid or recognized marriage - Legal status of unmarried individuals. Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Kentucky.

Kim Davis was illegally imprisoned by the federal government for not agreeing to violate her oath by issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples in Kentucky, since the Kentucky marriage statutes strictly limit the issuance of marriage licenses to male-female couples. Article Six of the United States Constitution establishes the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land, forbids a religious test as a requirement for holding a governmental position and holds the United States under the Constitution responsible for debts incurred.

Also, Kim Davis simply didn't want to have to put her name on those marriage licensed.
All they would of have had to do was accomodate that.

The Supreme Court cannot and did not make the law. Article I, Section I of the Constitution vests "all" legislative power in "Congress," and none in "the Supreme Court." The Supreme Court has no lawmaking authority. The separation-of-powers destroying notion of judge-made law, called "common-law," was itself obliterated by the Constitution. Laws have to be passed through Congress first. And Congress has to have a Constitutional basis for passing laws. Again, there is no Constitutional basis for marriage. This is why originally each state was placing it in the hands of the people to vote on.

"The Supreme Court issues administrative opinions that the other two superior branches (legislative and executive) should strongly consider. But any change in the laws must be made via the Constitutionally proscribed process (by the legislative branch and signed into law by the executive.) Judicial opinions are only legally binding on the parties in the case being heard in so far as they comply with the Constitution. Any law or court opinion contrary to the Constitution is legally null and void on ots face and must be ignored and rejected by every civil magistrate at every level and branch of government." - Gregg Jackson (Feel free to look it up, rather than assume he is wrong, just because he doesn't share the same feelings about this subject as you do).

But what about the 14th Amendment? Invoking the 14th Amendment is fraudulent, it has nothing to do with marriage. The 14th Amendment simply originated to ensure black persons who were born in America are not denied first class citizenship for reasons of their skin color. Skin color, or melanin, is an immutable and benign characteristic that has nothing to do with behavior or determining behavior or a set of behaviors. Homosexual sex and relationships are behaviors and conduct that people engage in. Big difference.

And there was no ban. Regarding the 14th Amendment The question of whether the equal protection clause has been violated arises when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in an activity yet denies other individuals the same right. Every adult can already marry another adult of the opposite sex. If an adult was not interested in that, the law still treats everybody the same. Also, any combination of two adults who are same sex was never banned from having any kind of committment ceremony and working out a legal agreement a contract to share wills, estates, retirement funds, hospital visitation rights, etc. The 14th Amendment being used to redefine marriage is nonsensical and fraudulent.

Racists wanted a form of marriage that encourages the separation the races. Marxist/leftists groups like The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and homosexual activists groups like HRC (founded by pedophile Terry Bean), GLAAD (Gays & Lesbians Association Against DISAGREEMENT), GLSEN, etc and their fellow "gay-kool-aid" drinkers and carriers are pushing for form a of marriage that encourages and promotes the separation of the sexes. So before segregation of the races, and now segregation of the sexes. Who's on the right side of history, again?

Kim Davis has obeyed Constitutional Law and the Rule of Law, Kentucky marriage statutes, Kentucky and U.S. Constitution.

In summary,
Kim Davis was doing her job...

- 5-9 unelected judges do not make laws for 320 million people. That is an oligarchy. Rights are not given on the basis of behaviors or practices people engage in or want to engage in. If "liberty & privacy rights” are the basis to grant rights to engage in a behavior a group of people cry the loudest for, what are the limitations?

- 2 supreme court justices (Ginsburg and Kagan) should of recused themselves. The legal issue is the redefinition of marriage. Officiating at an natural marriage does not indicate whether or not you support the redefinition of marriage, and thus the presumption of impartiality is preserved. There are plenty of people who have officiated at a natural/authentic marriage who also support same sex "marriage." However, to officiate at a same sex "marriage" is to cast your vote for redefinition -- and thus prove you are not impartial.

- Only members of Congress are authorized to make federal law, of which has to have a Constitutional basis. (See Article 1 of the Constitution)

- There is nothing in the Constitution about marriage or homosexual practice, nothing in the 14th Amendment, which was to prevent freed slaves from being murdered, lynched, or deprived of owning their own property. Liberty doesn't mean freedom from moral restraints of certain behaviors people want to engage in.ssuing a marriage license to a same sex couple is ultimately an affirmation and endorsement of homosexual practice, a sexual practice that clearly goes against GOD's word as well as overall public health.

Judicial supremacy is also not in the Constitution (see first link). Also, think about the fact we are dealing with a false presupposition of immutability here in the supreme court's opinion and the fact that every adult could already marry any adult of the opposite sex, regardless of their inclinations or sexual practices, and every 2 or more adults can already work out a legal agreement as far as property rights, wills, retirement plans, hospital vistation rights, etc.

- There is no Constitutional basis for homosexual practice, therefore 10th Amendment is only applicable here, which is state's rights, by the people for the people. Overturning Prop 8 and issuing marriage licenses in rebellion to that as Gavin Newsome did, is what is unConstitutional and illegal.

- People of Kentucky voted 75% in favor of keeping marriage between one man and one woman. Kentucky law and state Constitution defines marriage as one man one woman. See Kentucky statutes 402.005, 402.020 & 402.080.

- Therefore, Kim Davis is not only obeying GOD's law, but she is following both the Constitution, Kentucky statutes, and her oath as county clerk. Judge Bunning and any county clerk who issues same sex "marriage" licenses are the ones breaking the law.

(You can disagree with the political and religious views of the article publishers and authors all you want, you still have to directly address the content and data they provide).

By the way, I find it interesting that the leftist ACLU has been using the federal RFRA in court to defend the rights of Islamic radical prisoners l, while opposing it on the state level where it might help protect the rights of Christians...

“We are not creatures of sexual necessity. We are not compelled to act on our inclinations and urges, but are always free to act otherwise, even directly against the grain of those inclinations. To be truly free as a human means to have the strength to act against ourselves, so that we do not live in bondage to our own inner impulses and drives, a key consideration that distinguishes us from the animals. Human freedom involves the mastery of those drives by redirecting them and ordering them to higher goals.” ~ Pacholczyk
"God is the shaper of your heart. God does not display his work in abstract terms. He prefers the concrete, and this means that at the end of your life one of three things will happen to your heart: it will grow hard, it will be broken, or it will be tender. Nobody escapes." - Ravi Zacharias

Last edited by Funk*Sonic*7; 08-31-2016 at 12:26 PM.
Funk*Sonic*7 is offline   Reply With Quote