Once again U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning has rejected a claim made by Kim Davis in regards to her issuing marriage licenses in Rowan County, Kentucky.



Click here to read the above-quoted news story.

I admire her for standing for what she believes in but when you get paid by tax payers...ya kinda have to do the job according to the laws

She has made her point on her beliefs.the opposing viewpoint has made several more concessions that needed. I may agree with some of her beliefs. Time to step away from the job or take some of the offers offered.


She is a public figure, she is getting paid by the same taxpayers that she is denying their rights under supreme court.

I am fast running out of empathy for her.

I'm not sure what exactly she believe in.

The issuance of a marriage licence simply means that the two people named on it are legally qualified to get married to each other within the state that the license is issued.

Issuance does not mean that the county clerk personally approves of those two people getting married to each other.

Also, what irreparable harm would happen to her if she issued the licenses?
None that I know of.

Think she is opposed to gay marriage.

But she is getting a paycheck from tax payers. Suck it up buttercup or do something else...right?

Davis believes that her issuance of a marriage license implies that she personally approves of the two people getting married to each other.

Her logic is flawed. Other Christians working as county clerks know that, which is why they are doing their jobs properly.

I agree.

This is a shame.

This nation, has outspoken gay rights people, serving in similar elected offices... all on the taxpayer dole whilst espousing/inflicting their beliefs and propaganda on others.

Hell... we even have a gay agenda president in the whitehouse, espousing/inflicting his beliefs/propaganda on this country...
... again, at taxpayer expense.

As such, I see no problem with Ms. Davis' actions.

until enough people contest the legitimacy of the law,,,,

this is one of those situations that is a conflict, because the constituion doesnt specifically mention marriage as a right, or mention it at all

yet the courts (and political pressure, imho) have determined they will define it that way

yet the same constitution does SPECIFICALLY mention religion

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"


so the conflict being that laws are passed after people hold public office, that directly conflict with the tenets of a major and well recognized religion to use ones position to document support of something that is specifically prohibited by ones religion


I respect her stand,, I fear that she will lose her job over it, but I am also hopeful that within the process others who admire her will be in line to offer her something even better

one door closes, another opens

its not just about issuing them, its about having her name attached to it

I may work in a restaurant that serves meat, but if I am a vegetarian, I might choose to draw the line at 'endorsing' or recommending the meat

two different things


why is that logic flawed? and why assume that other Christians ' know' the logic is flawed simply because they continue to endorse these unions?


maybe its a matter of being middle of the fence Christians who when faced with a choice between income and values, are willing to hope they can be forgiven for needing their jobs?

God lumps all sins together, it isn't our job to decide 'which sin is greater' that is God's job. Not ours.

We also can't pick and choose parts of the Bible to follow or not follow,

She has been married and divorced and remarried

Mathew 31. It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE'; 32but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery'

So she not only is she a sinner, she attached her name to something(a second marriage certificate) that in many peoples eyes would be consider a sin.

But she refuses to follow 'the law of land' which we are instructed to do.

Romans 13.
"1 Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God.
2 So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished.
3 For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you.
4 The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong.
5 So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience.
6 Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do"

Keep in mind these are NEW TESTAMENT scriptures, the verse many Christians like to tout over and over is
Leviticus 20:13(Old Testament)
"if a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Like that verse somehow justifies them into being Bigots, God Lump's all sins together, there is no 'curve' like many would want people to believe, if you've ever lied, you are deserving of being in hell right along those 'detestable gays' he even says so.

1 Corinthians 6:9
"9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God"

He(God) lumps homosexuals right along with liars, and adulterers(which we've already established Miss Davis is because she was remarried(legally binding document, with her name attached and obviously 'supports' it)

Thankfully he also lumps them together when it comes to salvation as well.

1 Corinthians 6:11
"Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."

Again it is not our job to decide what sins are and are not acceptable, that's God's job and he's better at it than we could ever hope to be, so really the heavy lifting should be left to him. He has the benefits of seeing our 'true' motives and THAT is what he looks at.

Proverbs 16:2
2All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the LORD weighs the motives.

She may 'feel' she is doing right and she is 'justified' in her actions, but again that's not our job, it's HIS

now one last verse
Romans 13:8
The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,”a and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”b 10Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

Can anyone show me an example where Miss Davis acted in love? was she showing love or hate to a group of 'neighbors'?

As Christians, we are not called to be judge, in fact the Bible states many times that we shouldn't judge, was Miss Davis judging a group?

We as Christians are called to love.

Yes I know we are called to 'love the sinner, but hate the sin' but that doesn't mean we have the right to pick and choose what sin to hate and what 'we' deem acceptable.

In my eyes, yes she was wrong, because I don't believe what she states are her true motives, I'd be venture a guess(because that's the best that i can do) that her motives were more self-serving than based on true beliefs, but that's my assumption and not my job to state whether she was right or wrong in this matter, that's God's call.

its a common logical fallacy

that being a sinner should require us to not judge sin as sin or require us to remain silent about or to embrace all sins


divorce is not a sin, it is permissable in circumstances of infidelity or abandonment,, just knowing someone is divorced does not tell us whether it is under permissable conditions or not

however MARRIAGE that is permissable between male and female is much more obvious a situation if the parties are NOT male and female


there is also a mandate that gods authority is to be followed so when there is conflict between governing authority and Gods word, Gods word takes precedence,,

as is exemplified by Daniel continuing to pray when the king passed a decree against it

as is exemplified by Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego when they refused to follow the Kings decree to worship a graven image

as is exemplified by Peter and John being imprisoned rather than follow an order not to preach about jesus

,,,,etc,,,etc,,,


it is indeed the whole point of the Bible to teach us about sin so we may recognize it and to teach us about repentance so we may turn from it, and about forgiveness so that we may be as Jesus in our humility

,,remember, he did not stone the adulteress as the LAW dictated? yet he didnt just passively do nothing either,, he corrected her before sending her away

this is the example for the Christian,, to love through discipline, support and correction,, not just to have passive 'do no harm' love,,,

that is a low bar which Jesus lived WELL ABOVE....

there is no reason that knowing sin and being a sinner are incompatible

knowing sin and addressing it in others but not ourselves is when something is wrong


the assumption that those who believe homosexual activity to be a sin dont recognize or address their own sins,, is fallacious

they can both occur simultaneously in a christians life

Acts 5
27 The apostles were brought in and made to appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”

29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!

At best this fiasco is just another example of why government should stay out of marriage or defining marriage or offering any kind of rights or tax breaks due to a social construct.


No you don't.
Obama/DHS and immigration laws prove that.
Obama/DEA and federal marijuana laws prove that.
IRS tax exempt and email scandals prove that.
Hillary's emails prove that.

You only have to enforce the laws that you like or can get away with not following.


If she does I wonder if she'll sue due to discrimination based on religious beliefs.


Isn't it ironic a "judge" is telling her what to do and people are giving her crap for not doing it?


And she thinks gays are wrong because she doesn't believe...


So...you'd judge her motives.
That's just funny.

I am thinking this is a government institution and not a holy one

so perhaps


for all who were in these positions when the law changed,,noone should be required to have their PERSONAl stamp but all should be stamped with an official GOvernment seal?


and new electees can then go in knowing the FULL scope of what is expected and agreeing to it..?


that would be the reasonable compromise,, IMHO

but that is not likely to happen with this being FORCED , compromise doesnt seem to be a big thing amongst the 'tolerant'

so instead maybe its a matter of reprogramming the mind, that marriage is not holy but a government contract, period




I take this from the biblical objection to taxes, where the money had the emperors face on it and the instruction was to give the emperor what belonged to the emperor


perhaps reprogramming the mind to see 'marriage' as owned by the government and not God is the way to endure these times

maybe we just need to consider 'holy matrimony' something completely unrelated,,

so that we can give to the government what belongs to the government

and keep what is Gods for God,,?

Thank you.
*She willfully campaigned
*Willfully entered the race for office
>She didn't elect herself, but the above two willful actions of hers made her being elected possible.
*She willfully took the office, in which she was sworn to perform her PUBLIC LEGAL obligations in accordance with the laws, county State and U.S. Constitution.

*She willfully CHOSE to change her faith, converted, shifted, assimilated, how ever you want to say it, which she was within her right to do. It's a personal CHOICE that she made, coerced or not, she CHOSE it. Np.
(where exactly in the timeline this happened in relation to her 4 marriages and or divorces is irrelevant)

?Assuming she had access to the internet, TV, newspapers... She knew that magistrates were stepping down after getting pressure from the appellate Courts. At least they have the dignity and respect for the responsibility that came with their titles. They should be commended by the courts for using their freedom of speech to disagree without obstructing justice or denying citizens their LEGAL rights.

....even if she didn't read hear or see the media coverage on these cases, I'm certain there was communication directly to her from the 6th circuit Court with specific LEGAL instructions on the issuance of licenses. It wasn't to stop issuing licenses altogether, which she did so as not to discriminate, which in itself is ridiculous because it only added more angry discrimination from people with NO LEGAL AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC OFFICE or COURT.

So by standing her ground, she, herself, Kim Davis, Rowan Kentucky County Clerk, spat in the face of her constituents, spat in the face of the 6th circuit Court, spat in the face of the Supreme Court, wiped her a55 with the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and supplanted her LEGAL office with a zealous Pseudo-religious mob. And people applaud that?

She didn't behead anyone, I know, but how is this any different than Sharia Law being imposed on U.S. Soil?
It's based in religion.
The 2 biggest reasons we established The United States of America via the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War and The Constitution were freedom of speach/religion and taxation without representation.

Besides the fact that she is speaking for God and God's authority, in a LEGAL capacity, isn't that sacrilegious? A little?

To anyone out there that is a citizen of the United States, pays taxes, abides by the laws and is considering a same-sex marriage, I have an idea.

The First amendment guarantees your freedom of speech and religion. The founding fathers wrote that first for a reason, it wasn't random. I'm sure you are all aware of the judicial review that allows you the same LEGAL rights as any other American.

I think those of you seriously considering marriage, and those of you who already had plans to try again now that the Courts have assured you won't be denied your LEGAL rights, make a pilgrimage. Make a responsible respectful, LEGAL pilgrimage to Rowan County Kentucky. Make signs with the First amendment. You too have the right to peacefully assemble. Contact airlines and car rental companies and try to get group rates. Tourism helps the economy. PEACEFUL UNITY in the face of adversity, is a Constitutional Right of yours anywhere in the United States. It is protected, as will you be physically, by the laws and Law Enforcement officials. It is their duty to protect you, and they will. People in Rowan County have been denied their rights and going to jail for 5 days didn't teach this hag anything. She has taken upon herself to deny your fellow citizens their constitutional rights, no matter what. How much longer should she make $80,000 a year to sign and stamp marriage licenses, which she's no longer doing? Instead, in spite, and illegaly, she makes public statements in defiance of a 6th circuit court order and try to PERSONALLY circumvent the U.S. Court system of which she is an ELECTED OFFICIAL. I say go, peaceably, in protest, and demand she do her Publicly Elected LEGAL DUTY.

PEACEFUL LEGAL SAME-SEX MARRIAGE PILGRIMAGE TO ROWAN COUNTY KENTUCKY!

If Kim Davis.... weighs the same.... as a duck.... then she is..... made of wood.

BURN THE WITCH! BURN HER!!!!!!

the taxpayers never voted on it...

Here is the problem
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Congress did not make such a law.
Not one promoting a(ny) religion, nor any requiring adherence to one or any religion and it cannot.
That's the legislative side.
The judicial branch doesn't write legislation per se, but it is their CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to examine the laws as just or unjust. This isn't a construct of the Obama administration or the lbgt citizens. It's a part of the checks and balances written into the constitution itself.

The "establishment of religion" we fought the English for FREEDOM FROM was the Anglican Church, whose clergymen were defacto parliment. The King of England ruled the country empire and the church. Church rule was English rule, not the rule or the word of Christianity. It was the word of Christianity subject to the crown and the military/royal guard/royal navy/bishops... All fingers of the same crushing palm subject to change at the will of the King.

As Americans we are free to practice any religion we wish or none at all without fear of persecution prosecution or execution by our elected government. Catholics are not flogged or locked in London tower as heretics or traitors. Nor are other religions or agnostics. If that is their faith/belief, they are free to practice it or not.
LEGALLY, it DOES NOT separate them from CITIZENSHIP nor any RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS GUARANTEED AND PROTCTED BY LAW to citizens of ANY FAITH.

CHURCH




and





STATE

are

SEPARATE

in

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Evidence to support this FACT is in
The CONSTITUTION of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.