Brian 2.0 Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 Don't know if anyone caught it today, but Huckabee called in to Michael Medved's show and gave his opinion on the Kim Davis situation. It was all of the nonsense about "the laws of Kentucky", "Congress needing to pass a law to ratify the Supreme Court Decision" etc., and Medved just slapped him down by clearly explaining how the Constitutional system works. It was shockingly hilarious. Is there anyway to listen to that now? Sounds fantastic.
cinepro Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 All laws that restricted it where struck down. Untill new laws are put in place there is no law under which she can be prosecuted. I'm pretty sure she was being punished for Contempt of Court, which would seem to apply in this case.
cinepro Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 I like Peter Wehner's take on this issue, which coincidentally is similar to what I've already said in this thread: It’s no surprise that Republican presidential candidates Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee weighed in on behalf of Ms. Davis. Governor Huckabee, for his part, tweeted, “Kim Davis in federal custody removes all doubts about the criminalization of Christianity in this country. We must defend Religious Liberty!” This argument is both wildly overstated and muddled. For one thing, if an atheist or Muslim refused to issue marriage licenses to gays, they, too, would be held in contempt of court. And imagine the reaction from Governor Huckabee and others if a person of the Muslim faith refused to enforce a civil law by invoking his conception of God’s law (sharia law). Beyond that, to argue that public officials can simply refuse to uphold laws they don’t agree with is a prescription for chaos and lawlessness. Don’t Governor Huckabee and others see the problem of demanding laws to protect religious liberty while encouraging public officials to break the laws with which they disagree? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kim Davis may well be a person of sincere views. She may also believe she’s taking a principled moral stand. In fact, she’s being selective in which of God’s moral laws she insists must be obeyed – and obeyed not by those attending her church but by those living in our broader society. She could have allowed her deputies to issue the marriage licenses, preventing her from violating her conscience. But that wasn’t enough. She wanted to make this a (figurative) hill to die on. In doing so, she’s inadvertently doing a disservice to her faith, furthering the impression to a watching world that sex, and homosexuality in particularly, is a fixation of modern-day Christianity. The result is to reduce “a rich, complex and beautiful faith into a public obsession with sex,” in the words of David Brooks. There was no need for Ms. Davis – or Governor Huckabee and Senator Cruz – to elevate this issue into a national fight Christians are destined to lose, and, in this case, ought to lose. https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/09/06/the-wrong-fight-for-christians-to-wage/ 1
Russell C McGregor Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 I like Peter Wehner's take on this issue, which coincidentally is similar to what I've already said in this thread:I too agree with something he said: She could have allowed her deputies to issue the marriage licenses, preventing her from violating her conscience. But that wasn’t enough. She wanted to make this a (figurative) hill to die on. However, just as that wasn't enough for her, so it wouldn't have been enough for the new aristocrats. They want everyone in government service, as well as the wedding industry, and everywhere else that might conceivably have some interaction with them, to actively and personally support same sex "marriage."And like it.
jkwilliams Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 I too agree with something he said: However, just as that wasn't enough for her, so it wouldn't have been enough for the new aristocrats. They want everyone in government service, as well as the wedding industry, and everywhere else that might conceivably have some interaction with them, to actively and personally support same sex "marriage."And like it. It doesn't matter what any "aristocrats" want, but what the judge ordered. She violated a court order and was found to be in contempt of court, as she should have been. The system worked exactly as it should. That you and others want to make this about forcing Christians to "like" gay marriage just makes you look silly.
Brian 2.0 Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 I too agree with something he said: However, just as that wasn't enough for her, so it wouldn't have been enough for the new aristocrats. They want everyone in government service, as well as the wedding industry, and everywhere else that might conceivably have some interaction with them, to actively and personally support same sex "marriage."And like it. I know right?! It's like those Mormons, for them it's just not enough to practice their religion, they want everyone to BE Mormon, living or dead!
Ahab Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 I like Peter Wehner's take on this issue, which coincidentally is similar to what I've already said in this thread:All of this kind of talk has one basic premise: that the laws of man should be treated as if they are divine. Law as a God that must be obeyed and honored with all who defy it removed from the general population of society and treated as if they are bad people for having the gall to act contrary to how those wearing the black robes of a false priesthood determine they should act. They will simply not tolerate those who show contempt for their laws.Once upon a time it was somewhat okay to honor such men because the laws they upheld were pretty much the same as God's laws, but the more they uphold unrighteous acts the more the righteous people will show their contempt for those laws which God does not uphold. It's not as if the showdown is just getting started, though. It's been building up for quite a while. But the climax is coming. Not sure how soon but it will be happening soon. Grab some popcorn and continue to see things as they happen. It's going to be the biggest event this world has ever seen.
Brian 2.0 Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 All of this kind of talk has one basic premise: that the laws of man should be treated as if they are divine. Law as a God that must be obeyed and honored with all who defy it removed from the general population of society and treated as if they are bad people for having the gall to act contrary to how those wearing the black robes of a false priesthood determine they should act. They will simply not tolerate those who show contempt for their laws.Once upon a time it was somewhat okay to honor such men because the laws they upheld were pretty much the same as God's laws, but the more they uphold unrighteous acts the more the righteous people will show their contempt for those laws which God does not uphold.It's not as if the showdown is just getting started, though. It's been building up for quite a while. But the climax is coming. Not sure how soon but it will be happening soon. Grab some popcorn and continue to see things as they happen. It's going to be the biggest event this world has ever seen. SO TRUE! America is worse than ISIS... at least they are following God's laws as revealed to them.
ttribe Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 All of this kind of talk has one basic premise: that the laws of man should be treated as if they are divine. Law as a God that must be obeyed and honored with all who defy it removed from the general population of society and treated as if they are bad people for having the gall to act contrary to how those wearing the black robes of a false priesthood determine they should act. They will simply not tolerate those who show contempt for their laws.Once upon a time it was somewhat okay to honor such men because the laws they upheld were pretty much the same as God's laws, but the more they uphold unrighteous acts the more the righteous people will show their contempt for those laws which God does not uphold.It's not as if the showdown is just getting started, though. It's been building up for quite a while. But the climax is coming. Not sure how soon but it will be happening soon. Grab some popcorn and continue to see things as they happen. It's going to be the biggest event this world has ever seen. Here's a guy who's trying to make sure his interpretation of what he believes to be divine law ought to be enacted over everyone else: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/09/middleeast/al-baghdadi-isis-slave/index.html Should we "respect" him for "standing up" for what he believes?
Calm Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 For something new to discuss on this topic, how about this?http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/09/entertainment/eye-of-the-tiger-kim-davis-survivor-feat/
jkwilliams Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 For something new to discuss on this topic, how about this?http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/09/entertainment/eye-of-the-tiger-kim-davis-survivor-feat/ The day has apparently arrived in which copyright law is treated as divine.
ttribe Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 For something new to discuss on this topic, how about this?http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/09/entertainment/eye-of-the-tiger-kim-davis-survivor-feat/ Uh, cal...did you change your user name on here?
Russell C McGregor Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) It doesn't matter what any "aristocrats" want, but what the judge ordered. She violated a court order and was found to be in contempt of court, as she should have been. The system worked exactly as it should. That you and others want to make this about forcing Christians to "like" gay marriage just makes you look silly. Of course you would say that. But it is, in fact, what they want. That's why the jewellers were excoriated for believing in authentic marriage, even though they were willing to make the rings for the lesbian couple. And that's why the police officer was forced out of his job for not wanting to celebrate homosexual "pride," to the extent that he asked to swap assignments with another officer. Besides, as I'm sure you realise, we were not talking about why she is being prosecuted, but what she could have done as an alternative. No doubt you agree with the new aristocrats that nothing less than complete surrender would be acceptable. Everyone must actively, personally support same sex "marriage." And like it. Edited September 9, 2015 by Russell C McGregor
Thinking Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 This.I like Peter Wehner's take on this issue... "In doing so, she’s inadvertently doing a disservice to her faith, furthering the impression to a watching world that sex, and homosexuality in particularly, is a fixation of modern-day Christianity. The result is to reduce “a rich, complex and beautiful faith into a public obsession with sex."
Ahab Posted September 9, 2015 Posted September 9, 2015 This.Well it is pretty hard to think of amything more important than sex. We ARE sex, or if you prefer, sexual beings. Male and female.The problems start when we don't do what we should do as males and females.
jkwilliams Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Well it is pretty hard to think of amything more important than sex. We ARE sex, or if you prefer, sexual beings. Male and female.The problems start when we don't do what we should do as males and females.Thank heavens we have people like Kim Davis to tell us what we should do as males and females.
Teancum Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Of course you would say that. But it is, in fact, what they want. That's why the jewellers were excoriated for believing in authentic marriage, even though they were willing to make the rings for the lesbian couple. And that's why the police officer was forced out of his job for not wanting to celebrate homosexual "pride," to the extent that he asked to swap assignments with another officer. Besides, as I'm sure you realise, we were not talking about why she is being prosecuted, but what she could have done as an alternative. No doubt you agree with the new aristocrats that nothing less than complete surrender would be acceptable. Everyone must actively, personally support same sex "marriage." And like it.Gee did John say that? Or can you just not read?
Russell C McGregor Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) Gee did John say that? Or can you just not read? Did John say what? John ridiculed my conclusion. Did you not realise that? Or can you just not read? Edited September 10, 2015 by Russell C McGregor
Teancum Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) Don't know if anyone caught it today, but Huckabee called in to Michael Medved's show and gave his opinion on the Kim Davis situation. It was all of the nonsense about "the laws of Kentucky", "Congress needing to pass a law to ratify the Supreme Court Decision" etc., and Medved just slapped him down by clearly explaining how the Constitutional system works.It was shockingly hilarious.Hucklebee is grand standing. Not that others on the other side is not. I listened to Huckabee's comments when Davis was released. The man has demonstrated that he really is not fit to be president. Not that it was likely anyway. Edited September 10, 2015 by Teancum
Teancum Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) I too agree with something he said:However, just as that wasn't enough for her, so it wouldn't have been enough for the new aristocrats. They want everyone in government service, as well as the wedding industry, and everywhere else that might conceivably have some interaction with them, to actively and personally support same sex "marriage."And like it.Pure Horse poo. Now she is back to work. Let's see if she will settle for allowing her clerks to issue licenses or if she attempts to obstruct as she seems to indicate she will. Edited September 10, 2015 by Teancum
Teancum Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Did John say what? John ridiculed my conclusion. Did you not realise that? Or can you just not read?No John gave a rational and accurate answer that contained little to nothing of your rambling response,
Russell C McGregor Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) Pure Horse poo. Yes, that's what you usually contribute. Now she is back to work. Let's see if she will settle for allowing her clerks to issue licenses or if she attempts to obstruct as she seems to indicate she will. And I agree that if she continues to obstruct, as she did previously, then she will be in breach of the law. But just suppose she doesn't; suppose she does, as you say, settle for allowing her clerks to issue licenses, without touching them herself. Are you convinced that the gay lobby will be content to leave it at that? Suppose further that she allows her employees to issue licenses to same sex couples, while she personally only issues licenses to real couples. How long do you think the gay lobby will stand for that? I personally don't think it will be very long. Edited September 10, 2015 by Russell C McGregor
Russell C McGregor Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 No John gave a rational and accurate answer that contained little to nothing of your rambling response, A "rational and accurate answer" that didn't actually address what I was saying. He talked right past me, in other words. Which is fine by me; but if it didn't have much to do with my "rambling response," then it didn't have much to do with my previous post, which he purported to address, either.
Teancum Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 (edited) And I agree that if she continues to obstruct, as she did previously, then she will be in breach of the law.But just suppose she doesn't; suppose she does, as you say, settle for allowing her clerks to issue licenses, without touching them herself. Are you convinced that the gay lobby will be content to leave it at that?Suppose further that she allows her employees to issue licenses to same sex couples, while she personally only issues licenses to real couples. How long do you think the gay lobby will stand for that?I personally don't think it will be very long.Well if she does that and the gay lobby does what you say I will be as condemning of that as I have been of her actions the past few days. I do believe in reasonable accommodations and do respect persons religous views. I know we have not disussed it here but I think the firing of the Muslim flight attendant who did not want to serve alcohol was outrageous. There were plenty of her co workers happy to serve it so she did not have to. Edited September 10, 2015 by Teancum
Russell C McGregor Posted September 10, 2015 Posted September 10, 2015 Well if she does that and the gay lobby does what you say I will be as condemning of that as I have been of her actions the past few days. I do believe in reasonable accommodations and do respect persons religous views. I know we have not disussed it here but I think the firing of the Muslim flight attendant who did not want to serve alcohol was outrageous. There were plenty of her co workers happy to serve it so she did not have to. I agree with you. Oh no! Whatever is the world coming to?
Recommended Posts