No products in the cart.

News

Kim Davis on Gay Marriage License: Its A Heaven Or Hell Decision

Here is a subject, and a news story, which should elicit a number of comments below this article. Please be civil, yes?

However, as a personal favor to me, your friendly editor, could someone show me where in the Constitution the Federal government is authorized to involve itself in the societal institution of marriage?  Should Federal courts be involved at all?  I’m trying to learn, so please share your thoughts below this article.

Thank You,

Salute!

Elias Alias, editor

___________________

 

Tense Video Of Moment Davis Refuses Marriage License

Please read whole article at Absolute Rights —

http://absoluterights.com/davis-refusing-to-issue-license/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=banne

by James Bosworth , September 1, 2015

[ot-video type=”youtube” url=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O1Cb4O3dQs”]

 

Quoting passages from the article at Absolute Rights –

MOREHEAD, Ky. (AP) — A county clerk in Kentucky who invoked “God’s authority”  Tuesday for defying the U.S. Supreme Court on gay marriage has been summoned by a federal judge to explain why she should not be fined or jailed for contempt.

U.S. District Judge David Bunning moved swiftly after Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis insisted yet again Tuesday that her religious beliefs prevent her from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis turned several couples away and then retreated into her office, where her door and blinds were closed to the raucous scene outside.

Davis then issued a statement refusing to resign or concede her position.

“To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision,” her statement said. “I was elected by the people to serve as the County Clerk. I intend to continue to serve the people of Rowan County, but I cannot violate my conscience.”

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene Monday night, leaving Davis no legal ground for her continued refusal. Lawyers for couples who were denied licenses asked the judge Tuesday to find her in contempt, but punish her with only financial penalties, not jail time.

“Since Defendant Davis continues to collect compensation from the Commonwealth for duties she fails to perform,” they asked Bunning to “impose financial penalties sufficiently serious and increasingly onerous” to compel her immediate compliance without delay….

Amid Tuesday’s developments, two groups lined up on either side of the courthouse entrance to chant at each other.

“At the end of the day, we have to stand before God, which has higher authority than the Supreme Court,” said Randy Smith, leading the group supporting Davis.

Ermold and Moore, together for 17 years, cried and swayed as walked out to chants from the clerk’s supporters.

“I feel sad, I feel devastated,” Ermold said. “I feel like I’ve been humiliated on such a national level, I can’t even comprehend it.”

The clerk’s husband, Joe Davis, came by to check on his wife. He said she has received death threats but remains committed to her faith and is “standing for God.” As for himself, he said he believes in the Second Amendment: “I’m an old redneck hillbilly, that’s all I’ve got to say. Don’t come knocking on my door.”

Please read the whole article at Absolute Rights…

http://absoluterights.com/davis-refusing-to-issue-license/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=banne

…and don’t forget to leave your comments below this article.  Thank you!

0

Elias Alias

Editor in Chief for Oath Keepers; Unemployed poet; Lover of Nature and Nature's beauty. Slave to all cats. Reading interests include study of hidden history, classical literature. Concerned Constitutional American. Honorably discharged USMC Viet Nam Veteran. Founder, TheMentalMilitia.Net

Oath Keepers Merchandise

222 comments

  1. I sympathize with her stance, but when she was elected she took a oath.
    Saying that she needs to honor her oath. Separation of church & state
    I would tell her to head the scripture;
    Mark 12:17
    And Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s,
    and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were amazed at Him.

    1. “Saying that she needs to honor her oath”

      She IS honoring her Oath.

      Separation of church and state means that those serving within the government cannot say that bowing and submitting to the religion of pearlywhites is now required of everyone. It does not say that only Muslims or only Christians may follow their beliefs. matter of fact, when those who serve within our government step in and say that Christians or Muslims, or etc may not do XXXX, then those who serve within our governments are overstepping their bounds UNLESS what is being done is destroying property, injuring or destroying life.

      Yep, they cannot tell schools, public or private, not to have Christmas trees but put all other religions stuff all over the walls. All religions can be taught or represented, but none can be favored or pushed by those who serve within our governments.

      She did not push or require anyone there to join her beliefs.

      But the other point is that the decision of the judges was based mostly on FOREIGN laws, etc which is NOT allowed within our judicial system here in America. There will need to be a different trial, and those Judges who did NOT do their constitutional duty, matter of fact, went against it and committed TREASON, felonies – breaking their Oaths, etc are needing charges and arrests. See here in America, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, the law, particularly the Supreme LAW, is above them.

    2. Presumably, she swore an oath to execute her duties faithfully, and did so finishing with “so help me god”.

      Any oath, based on any other premise is pagan, and therefore biblically invalid.

      So in doing so, she swore before the highest power, God himself, and in doing so requested that his guidance be ever present- “so HELP ME”.

      Therefore, in refusing to comply, she is not violating her oath. She is in strict compliance with it.

      So all of you oathkeepers who chose “affirm” instead of “swear”, and did no invoke God, are off the hook.

  2. Totally behind OK, active member.

    Words matter. We will continue to lose the fight for public opinion when we contest within the frame of our opponents. In this issue, the we need recognize the problem is among SAME SEX UNIONS. There are not, and never have been, any laws anywhere against homosexuals marrying. In fact, many gay persons are married to opposite sex individuals everyday. No problem !

    This is a giant distinction, intentionally obscured by the proponents of deconstructing our culture. We promote their agenda when we use their jargon.

    Same sex=I love my dog=the four of us want to marry=marry anything

  3. Mrs. Davis is a real American hero, and everyone who is truly an American should be standing by her. All of Kentucky as well as the rest of the USA and the world must rally by her side!!! She is the epitome of everything that is right, holy and good with America and for anyone to issue death threats against Mrs. Davis, for any reason, should not only be prosecuted for doing so, but should have their US citizenship revoked. God Bless her and all that stand for liberty, justice and truth!!!

  4. We need to support Kim Davis in her stance here. It has been too long that true Christians have remained silent on the issue of the higher power and law of God over that of man. It is no small reason why we as a nation and world are in the condition we are in, a battle of Biblical proportions.

    We stand with both Kim and her husband in their commitments. God bless you both.

  5. – A Muslim grocery store worker refuses to handle pork for religious reasons.
    – A Christian baker won’t make a cake for a gay wedding for religious reasons.

    Liberals will defend one scenario, and prosecute the other. Why? Both are asserting that certain aspects of their work environment infringe on their religion.

    The only real difference here is that the grocery store employee should be fired for not being able to meet his job description and obligations. The baker on the other hand OWNS the business and should be able to refuse to enter into contractual business arrangements that make them uncomfortable in ANY way.

    Judges are supposed to uphold contracts, NOT rewrite them or force people to enter into them.

    1. Excellent points. Besides, marriage is the union(key word here) of a couple that may or may not stand before a minister, pastor or priest to exchange vows, a custom if you will. The marriage licensing is nothing more than a legality & business venture in society by those seeking or thinking that their union is all the more valid. The county clerks and courts, etc. also see this as a business, fees and all that jazz. These two claim to be together for 17 yrs.,.sheesh, just stay together without all the problematic legalities and be done. Just my thoughts…

  6. Fantastic woman, strong and letting Our Lord God handle this for her, as to personal experience no matter what the end result, no matter how hard it was on myself and my family, Our Lord “always” came thru on the end side and NEVER let us down. She may have to pay a price but Jesus IS with them.

  7. Not for nothing, is there not any more important things to talk about? Vets being disarmed, officer-shootings, NO real borders, disarming the American people, warrantless searches, “unlawful enemy combatants”, martial law, blockade American cities, etc. STOP THE MEDIA TRAP OF ISSUES THAT DIVERT Stick to the ones we need to care about?

    1. Having the Government coerce and put you in jail for exercising your first Amdt right is no small thing…no less an issue than setting up a “free speech zone” or taking your cows because the govt disagrees with your claims. Get educated and realize the seemingly small battles are just further erosion until you wake up one day and wonder “Where did it all go?”

    2. @ Gee, I agree with you on all that you said, except for omitting God from the equation. You see God is the highest authority, and if our conscience is not clear before him it cuts off the flow or fellowship with Him.Our country has been falling for quite some time now and as of the Obama administration it is just all out tyranny. Things that I believe really started to pull Gods blessing off of our country were 1) pull prayer from public school 1963 2) Abortion becoming legal 3)Sodomy becoming legal by the U.S.Can you imagine a Holy and righteous God winking at this and letting it slide? I can’t. That’s why He gave his Son Jesus Christ to atone for our sins to those who would accept it. Things have been slowly coming apart from the beginning of the Republic, but now that all manner of perversion has become the so-called law of the land God can’t bless us any more. How do I know this you may ask, well simply put the Bible tells me so.

      1. Delighted to read your comments. I would add as a retired Parole Board Judge that no one has a constitutional right to physically injure another person.
        The five lawyer on the Supreme Court are not doctors! They are persons who have made the study of law their career. Little do they know that in same-sex marriage the bottom partner’s sphincter is compromised. Using the anus/sphincter as a vagina causes serious damage to the sphincter as there is only one layer of red blood cells protecting the person from serious infections.
        What these five lawyers have created is a population of fecal leaking Americans. They have violated the tenets of America’s criminal justice foundation and violated every health law of our fifty states.
        A nurse conveyed to me that these fecal leaking person permeate the air aroung them and would and are causing persons to leave areas where they are at (Restaurants, theaters, etc.). Having served in Korea and sitting behind a feces packed “honey-wagon” the stench is terrible and nauseating. Furthermore, the caring of these fecal leaking persons, if they are poor, will have to come from the taxpayers. Again, this court erred by not using the rule that before a decision is made it must not expose the taxpayers to additional financial burdens.

        I believe as Chief Justice Scalia did that this is a long term conspiracy by the homosexual lobby and their billionaire minions. Anthony Kennedy has been writing the decisions (His clerk is a homosexual and I wonder if he wrote or help write the law for same-sex marriage). Since this President supports same-sex marriage and he appoints the Attorney General no one has investigated who wrote the decision.

        By the way, CONSPIRACY is a crime. And although the law was passed in a legal manner it seems to have been done in an unlawful manner, which is why we have the crime of conspiracy. If I had the resources of the CIA and FBI, I believe we would find a long term conspiracy.
        The homosexuals took over the party in which I’m in-Democratic and bought everyone out with their billionaire friends like the CEO of Starbucks and a host of others.

        Homosexual complaint about discrimination, however, they themselves discriminate against person like me who don’t care for the Sodomite lifestyle. In 2010, I was a candidate for Governor of the State of California in the Democratic Primary. There was a Internet site with all the Republicans in red and Democrats in blue in Washington D.C. However, and here’s the sneaky subtle discrimination, Charles Pineda, Jr. of California was in the blue column with all the democrats, but there was a red line underneath the blue to let the nations homosexuals that although I was a democratic candidate I didn’t support their lifestyle, for that is what it is a LIFESTYLE AND NOT A RIGHT THAT CANNOT BE FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION.

        Deciding hundreds of criminal parole cases year after year and using our California Penal Code there are enough law to protect any person from harm or physical harm and that includes homosexuals. There was absolutely no need to add laws to protect their lifestyle which was prevalent in Sodom and Gomorrah. To bad we don’t have a presidential candidate to delete the same-sex marriage law. Few Americans know that the court had to nullify older supreme court laws in order to replace it with the same-sex marriage law. Congress could have nullified the new law, and I wrote the Speaker of the House and, from my knowledge did nothing (Bohner), and then he quit Congress. The AG send me an e-mail that they received my e-mail and that was it. The Supreme Court didn’t acknowledge my e-mail raising the issue of physical injure during the thirty day period for RECONSIDERATION.

        I guess God words in Leviticus 18:22 and 20;13 don’t carry any weight with these same-sex marriage Supreme Court Judges. Please remember our duty the Lord Almighty who created the heavens and the earth in Proverbs 8:13.

        God continue to bless you. I’m also a Union Gospel Mission preacher in Sacramento, California, and a preacher and missionary for God’s Garden Church of Sacramento doing work in Monterico, Guatemala.
        My best,
        Charles Pineda, Jr. of California

  8. My comment is just this. The federal government has overstepped it’s legal limits countless times during the last 8 years. We are under a dictatorship. The People are no longer represented. We have no voice at all in our government. We are controlled and dictated to. The phrase “We the People” is just that….a phrase. A slogan of times past. It is no longer relevant.
    Many people believe that the people of America can continue to “Vote” themselves out of this mess. They believe that all they have to do is “talk reasonable” and focus on how to do things better. They want to teach others how they are wrong.
    Question…..has anyone ever had success at talking with a murderer attempting to get him to understand the error of his ways? Explaining how killing is wrong and that he should not do that again? Would that work with ISIS? Our government officials and our television reporters believe that. We just need to talk to them and explain things to them better. Or find them meaningful employment so they will not feel so discouraged.
    The fact is this……America has come to the end of the road. NO politician, No President can fix the moral decay that is sweeping America. We are too far gone and America will never be able to “vote” it’s way out of this situation.
    And if anyone actually believes that this is where it will stop is out of their mind. This…..is just the beginning. You ain’t seen nuthin yet.
    What is the solution?
    God.
    America is lost. She will never be the same again. Only our faith in God…putting all of our trust in Him will see us through this. The “End” may come quickly or it may be an extended death spiral. But the Bible has been warning us of these coming events for 2000 years. We ARE in the Last Days.
    We cannot save America. She is lost. But we can stand together, those remaining few of us, and try to live another day or two longer….with God’s help.

    And remember that as Christians we are ordered by Jesus Christ himself to be armed. Christ himself ordered all Christians in the Book of Luke, chapter 22 verses 36 to be armed…..even at the expense of doing without clothing if necessary. Why? To protect the remnant. Because without the remnant the Gospel would stop being told.
    And that is the job of all Christians, to spread the Gospel to everyone we can while we are still alive.
    God bless all of you. Pray for our Nation and our World. Pray that God has mercy on us.

  9. Kim Davis is justified in her position. The federal government has no enumerated power to make social law, and Kentucky law forbids deviant marriage. Since deviant sexual behavior is not immutable nor a birth condition, federal nullification, such as special class law and Civil Rights actions, cannot override State 1M1W marriage law. Simply put, the Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges was wrong, and Ms. Davis is within her rights to nullify this decision.

  10. You are correct editor, the supremes got it way wrong, but even though there are other laws in KY that require the Govt use the least restrictive means when applying the law…meaning if there be a way to comply with the higher court without violating Kin’s ” freedom to exercise” then the Govt must. However to date, the Governor has not lifted a finger in following that law. Hopefully the judge will recognize this today and add his voice in calling for the Governor to do his job. Several bills have been written on only await the Legislature to return from recess, or the Gov could call a special session or write an executive order. Honor your Oath Governor. Failing that honor your oath Judge. Failing that Honor your Oath Sheriff. And if need be honor your Duty Cotizens!

  11. The Supreme Court has no business ruling on social issues. NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION, give them that authority . This country was founded on freedom of religion, and now we have the supreme court trying to impose upon our religious beliefs. This country is divided more than ever, and if we dont get back to our Constitutional rights., we are headed for another revolutionary war. I know what side I’ll be on.

  12. “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.” Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
    This was never a federal matter to begin with.

    1. Bingo.
      At least, on that part of this debate.

      This debate, as it appears to me today, goes ultimately to the relationship between the individual and the collective (i.e., “government”). There is the history of the man-in-mass, and the history of some individual men (and women). The history of man-in-mass is illustrated as a synopsis of Centuries, revealing that something in socialization causes them to want an “Earthly King”. Mankind in mass appears to demand some authoritative external power as the object of their subjugation, to which it must bow as proof of consent. Thoreau touched on that in his Civil Disobedience essay. Jefferson inferred the “Unalienable Rights” concept which boasts superiority of those rights over any man-made government. I think often about the opening paragraph in Herbert Spencer’s essay, “The Right To Ignore The State”.

      The issue itself, what is at center of this debate, is old news in many views.

      Salute!
      Elias Alias, editor

  13. God will not be mocked. With laws on this Nation’s Statutes that refute His Almighty Authority He will withdraw His Protection from this land. He cannot lie, He will be forced to do so. We have failed Him by not fighting harder when these Nasty minded people took control of our Nation. God help us, but fighting them is fighting an enemy of my country. We must repeal this law and depose every Judge who makes law instead of interpreting it.

  14. The federal government was formed by the states and given enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. Marriage is not one of them. The states for too long have given into the federal power grab; much of it by taking federal funds with strings attached. It is time for the states to stand up and ignore (nullification) the federal government’s overreach.

    1. I agree, there is a certain ‘bunch’ that’s going to rake in huge cash for it – there is a guy who calls himself ‘Brother Nathanael’ on you tube, with a few videos about how some of it was implemented.

  15. In answer to the jurisdiction question: The 14th Amendment states that all persons shall be afforded equal protection of the law, and authorizes enforcement by the United States. While I do not agree that marrying anyone or anything you want is a right, if the justices say it is, I guess it is.
    More importantly, Ms. Davis is a servant of the Government. If she cannot reconcile that role to her personal beliefs, she has a duty to resign. (full stop) The marriage license is for a state purpose, not God’s purpose.

    1. Yet the First Amendment, which pre-dates the Fourteenth (and that matters in law–not to mention it is the first Amendment in he Bill of Rights, which also matters) states very clearly that the government is not allowed to interfere with religion. That trumps the Equal Protections Clause in the Fourteenth.

  16. First, marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony, not a governmental one though those that serve within our government stepped into it so that they could collect money and REGISTER people.

    I believe that we need to get those that are serving within our government and doing whatever they can to insert themselves into, and over, what we do with our lives; to get government OUT of marriage and the rest of our lives. Marriage existed before the US Constitution, before America and if you do the research it is a RELIGIOUS ceremony.

    The US Constitution does not authorize those that serve within the general government that authority – the federal government is actually 5 “pieces”; “We the People of the united States, the states (each is a sovereign government), the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch – nor much more that they are taking (usurping – a crime).

    Regarding religion and our government which was brought up many times;

    Patrick Henry: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, BUT BY CHRISTIANS; not on religions, BUT ON THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

    John Adams: “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.”

    James Madison, Federalist 14: “In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any”.

    I myself have not found anything that delegates any authority over marriage, travel, most of what we do within our own states, etc delegated to the general government. Remember that those that serve have specific put into writing duties and authority that is easy to check and see if what they are doing is lawful and legitimate within OUR nation.

    Problems that must be addressed in the Lawrence case are that to come to the conclusion that the majority of Judges did they relied upon FOREIGN laws and cases, and only those that backed up what they wanted to portray in their decision.

    Foreign law has no place in American courts, nor does any thing done in foreign nations as acceptable (think beheadings – though those in our government did order a bunch of guillotines for use as ?). America cut her ties and created her OWN nation when she won her fight with England long ago. We LAWFULLY do not use foreign laws in our courts, treaties made MUST conform to the US Constitution or are NOT valid, The Supreme LAW of our land is the last word on the law here in our nation.

    Some “laws” they used as evidence that Texas needs to change her laws instead of those who disagree with Texan laws move to a state that operates more as they would like (California as an example). None of those laws can LAWFULLY be used here to change OUR US laws, to modify our governments – state and general, etc:

    – A committee advising the British Parliament recommended in 1957 repeal of laws punishing homosexual conduct. The Wolfenden Report: Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offenses and Prostitution (1963). Parliament enacted the substance of those recommendations 10 years later. Sexual Offences Act 1967, §1.

    – Of even more importance, almost five years before Bowers was decided the European Court of Human Rights considered a case with parallels to Bowers and to today’s case.

    – the European Convention on Human Rights.

    – Dudgeon v. United Kingdom, 45 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1981) ¶52. Authoritative in all countries that are members of the Council of Europe

    – The European Court of Human Rights

    – See P. G. & J. H. v. United Kingdom, App. No. 00044787/98, ¶56 (Eur. Ct. H. R., Sept. 25, 2001); Modinos v. Cyprus, 259 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1993);

    – Norris v. Ireland, 142 Eur. Ct. H. R. (1988).

    – Other nations, too, have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the protected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. See Brief for Mary Robinson et al. as Amici Curiae 11—12.

    – The right the petitioners seek in this case has been accepted as an integral part of human freedom in many other countries.

    Since the decision was based on so much of what Europe and the rest of the world is doing and NOT on America, American values, etc this case must be retried LAWFULLY while those judges that used and defended the use of foreign law and went agaisnt their DELEGATED authority of the position they occupy MUST be removed as the only reason to use the rest of the worlds laws here in American courts must be to assist those trying to make our nation part of the One World Government (NWO) and destroy our sovereignty.’

    If they cannot make the decision, decide lawfully for this case according to American law (American legal precedence not including foreign law) for this case based on American law and the US Constitution, and in this case the Texas Constitution they have not decided the case at all, at least not lawfully for the USA and the authority DELEGATED to all who become US Judges.

    These are important to remember;

    Abraham Lincoln: “We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”

    Using foreign laws in US courts pervert the US Constitution.

    Tucker’s Blackstone, Volume I, Chapter 1 regarding how the Oath and constitutional duty applies to the judiciary: “But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined? The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice. They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide according to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution. Now this is a positive law, fixed and established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions; and therefore can never be departed from by any modern judge without a breach of his oath and the law. For herein there is nothing repugnant to natural justice;..”

    The judicial branch of the federal government is not in place to “interpret” the Constitution of the United States of America, but to decide if a law, bill, treaty, case is IN PURSUANCE THEREOF – they are to make sure that they are following the US Constitution.

    US Constitution, Article III Section. 2: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;…”

    The US Constitution says in Article VI that it does NOT apply to any law created. It is only those laws that follow (are in Pursuance thereof) the US Constitution: “… This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    It also says that anyone serving within the federal or state governments MUST support the US Constitution or no longer meet the qualifications of the position or office they are occupying when it says this about qualifying for office or public trust:

    “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

    ALL justices – federal and state – MUST support the US Constitution and follow it or they no longer meet the contract, bound and verified by taking the Oath of Office, and would no longer lawfully be occupying the position they are serving in.

    Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Syllabus, BOND v. UNITED STATES
    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    No. 09–1227. Argued February 22, 2011—Decided June 16, 2011
    [excerpt]
    (b) Amicus, appointed to defend the judgment, contends that for Bond to argue the National Government has interfered with state sovereignty in violation of the Tenth Amendment is to assert only a State’s legal rights and interests. But in arguing that the Government has acted in excess of the authority that federalism defines, Bond seeks to vindicate her own constitutional interests. Pp. 8–14.
    (1) Federalism has more than one dynamic. In allocating powers between the States and National Government, federalism “ ‘secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power,’ ” New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 181. It enables States to enact positive law in response to the initiative of those who seek a voice in shaping the destiny of their own times, and it protects the liberty of all persons within a State by ensuring that law enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions. See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 458. Federalism’s limitations are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States. In a proper case, a litigant may challenge a law as enacted in contravention of federalism, just as injured individuals may challenge actions that transgress, e.g., separation-of-powers limitations, see, e.g., INS v. Chadha, 462 U. S. 919. The claim need not depend on the vicarious assertion of a State’s constitutional interests, even if those interests are also implicated. Pp. 8–12.
    Cite as: 564 U. S. ____ (2011)

    Alexander Hamilton: “Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802: “The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “The several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

    Thomas Jefferson: “[A] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, OF SAVING OUR COUNTRY WHEN IN DANGER, ARE OF HIGHER OBLIGATION. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”

    Cal

  17. I have heard several reports that Kim Davis is on her FOURTH marriage, and that she was pregnant with her 4th husband’s baby when she was still married to her 3rd husband. If true, does this change the support folks might have for her actions?

    1. What does that have to do with anything that the court decided to change America and American values using FOREIGN law, foreign etc which is NOT allowed to those who serve within those positions here in America?

      I personally do not see that any of the people involved as the problem. What IS the real problem is the use of forbidden foreign laws, foreign etc to make a decision that is supposedly binding on all Americans, and that the “Judges” also stomped all over state laws that actually have precedence, broke their Oaths, felonies; etc.

      In other words, no it does not change one iota what she did, or what those that brought the case want. What matters is that those that SERVE WITHIN OUR GOVERNMENT ARE WORKING TO DESTROY OUR NATION FROM WITHIN, that a decision made unlawfully and unConstitutionally is being presented as a “law” here in our nation and being backed by traitors or idiots. (I understand if you do not post this as that is a rant. In my defense, I did remove a bit.)

      What bothers me most is that the Judges committed TREASON against the American people and the US Constitution and that you, and others do not even recognize it.

      READ the US Constitution. Learn OUR government. We are still a Constitutional Republic and I am sick and tired of those who let others tell them what to think instead of doing what they are REQUIRED to do as citizens, and READ and LEARN the US Constitution.

    2. Should it?

      Do you know at what point she came to Christ?

      Do you know the present state of her mind and of her repentance?

      Do you know of her prayers and what answers she received?

      The corollary is that she could give in five minutes from now, admit she was wrong, and begin issuing licenses. Human flesh is weak.

      But NONE of that make any difference to right now.

    3. It won’t change their opinion because they’re too blind by their bigoted hatred to see the irony and hypocrisy. Divorce is just as demonized by the Bible as homosexuality. Yet it’s perfectly OK for her to be divorced 3 times but not for a gay couple to get married. This “protecting the sanctity of marriage” crap is a joke. Worry more about your own relationships and less about who other people choose to love and spend their lives with.

      If some church or religion doesn’t want to recognize it, that’s freedom of religion I suppose. I’m sure that homosexuals can find or start another church that will. However, the states need to recognize it as a legal issue so homosexuals can receive the same rights to benefits as straight couples do.

      My best friend since elementary school served in the Army and National guard for 20 years until he retired on a medical discharge. He came out as a homosexual shortly afterwards. Now after he faithfully upheld his Oath and defended this country, you people think he shouldn’t have the right to marry someone because he’s gay. I call bullshit.

      This whole issue isn’t about religious freedom. It was about her doing her damn job and if the two conflict then she needed to find a different profession. It was a state issue, not a church issue.

  18. The “supreme” court is neither supreme nor, in this instance, acting as a court. The U.S. Constitution grants absolutely zero authority for a bunch of old grizzled “progressive” communistic community activists to address the issue of marriage. Oath Keepers and the entire country should get behind anyone who stands up and tells those miserable excuses for 9 human beings they are NOT supreme and they themselves will eventually be held accountable for their despicable actions by the REAL supreme court of God in Heaven.

  19. A perfect example of the ‘tolerance’ police in action. Insults, threats, a gang of media more than willing to attack a lone woman to gain their abhorrant wishes. Threats of lawsuits, violence by those w/an alliegiance to government overreach. She will be attacked by ‘Potemkin 24/7’ aka MSM/TASS USA on the airwaves, in print & electronically. He stands WITH her.

  20. This is the sort of tyranny that many of the the first pilgrims came to this country to escape. Rand Paul is right, the federal government should stay out of this.

  21. Ms. Davis has the absolute right as a God believing Christian for not engaging in a process banned in the bible. The right to determine what the definition of marriage is was not delegated to the Federal Government by God and has no right to do so , I will stand with Ms. Davis and her Bible.

  22. her decision to stand against the powers of darkness affirms what a faithful public servant and Oath Keeper must do– defend against federal encroachment on state and local authority, by upholding the law according to the standard of those who elected her to office. The Constitution does not give federal judges any authority power to change the laws of nature, regardless of how they read the 14th Amendment.

  23. The real problem is that the Supreme Court redefined an institution, marriage, that was instituted by God at the creation, without having the legal authority to do so! Marriage as an institution has been and is recognized by every culture as a union between a man and a woman. Some cultures have allowed poligamous marriages, but no culture has called a same sex union a marriage! There is no provision whatsoever in the Constitution that gives the Federal Government any authority over marriage and therefore this opinion has no valid legal authority. We are a nation of law and the Suprme Court is subject to the law of the land, the Constitution. The Constitution is a compact between the States whereby limited, defined powers were delegated by the States to the federal government and anything outside of these delegated powers is null and void from the beginning. Nullification is the proper remedy for usurpation of power and Kim Davis is nullifying this lawless decision of the Supreme Court by her actions. She is taking seriously both her God given right of religious liberty, protected by the First Amendment, and her Oath of Office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

  24. We have come along way in a short period of time. In the wrong direction. ONCE again the federal government is forcing the states to bend to there far left beliefs and ramming everything down our throats. I feel for the clerk but also support her at same time. I would more than be glad to help her finance her legal expense as much as I possibly can afford

  25. factually, marriage not really a civil right in America, but rather a natural right.

    the real violation of law with marriage is the fact that the US Government at all levels interferes in private contracts. marriage is, in fact, a private contract.

    yet, the STATE continues to issue “marriage licenses”. people should consider that a “license” or “permit” gives one permission by the STATE to do something one doesn’t already have the natural right to do. consider this with regard to the concept of a “marriage license”. 😉

    if everyone truly understood natural rights VS civil rights, everyone would be petitioning the government to refrain from violating our natural rights and we wouldn’t have such division among Americans. 😎

  26. I think that this issue is a distraction from Oath Keepers’ purpose. We are spread too thin to counter every illegitimate assertion of federal authority, even if one assumes that this is one of those assertions. We need to increase our numbers greatly as fast as possible. With the (latest) (deliberately created) stock market bubble bursting, it seems clear that the S is about to HTF. When it really fully does that, gay marriage will be the LEAST of our problems.

    Does anybody here watch The Last Ship as I do? It is a super high-quality show — and one that provides a lot of education about what a breakdown in civil order could look like.

  27. The entire institution of marriage is diminished and relegated to insignificance, deliberately so, under the guise of emotional sensitivity and not the perverse, blatant shallow gratification that it truly is. Everything dear is under attack, everything that Americans celebrate is being torn down to substandard levels. It has the signature of Satan and his minions and it is a massive assault on “We the people…”

    Kim Davis radiates courage in the face of overwhelming force, exposes the corrupted court system in the process, while exercising her first amendment right to its core. There are no exceptions to our rights… none.

  28. “However, as a personal favor to me, your friendly editor, could someone show me where in the Constitution the Federal government is authorized to involve itself in the societal institution of marriage? Should Federal courts be involved at all? ”

    Marriage is both a natural and religious act. Governments have no authority to administer any laws regarding marriage, yet they do. U.S. laws surrounding marriage are a farce and certainly unconstitutional. I firmly stand with and support Ms. Davis. We need more like her to defy the meddling of government in matters of our privacy. Our fellow constitutional countrymen must also stand and support her.

    MOLON LABE

  29. Hi Elias, Hope you are well. Mary and Richard has got me researching the Planet X constellation, which some believe is due here soon to wipe away all the immorality taking place on this planet. If we are able to wipe out the PTB Zionists, or whoever controls us, we will also wipe out their immoral control of the sheep.

    What next after exaltation and acceptance of overt homosexuality?
    Polygamy and Pedophilia and Bestiality? These and more are coming next.

  30. The Lady is well within Her Right,s to Refuse Gays a Marriage License according to Gods Law as well as the U S Constitution Nowhere in the Constitution Dose it Say that a God Fearing Person Has to Compromise there Religious Beliefs to Accommodate a Non Believers also the Entire Bill of rights Guarantee,s that these ten Rights will never Be Infringed Upon By Any Group of People Including Non Be livers of Christ or Gays they can go to a Political Correct Believing Bureaucratic License Courthouse Rather then to Infringe Upon Christians Rights art 6 sec 1 Clause 2 of the Constitution Clearly States that anything or any Law that is in Contrary to the Constitution is Not Withstanding (therefor it is Not Law at all.)so therefore Davis Is well within Her Constitutional Rights After all she is Not a Politician and Dose not Have to Be Politically Correct Nor is She Under the Executive Branch of the U S Government so she Dose not have to Follow Executive Orders that are only Required For Persons that Work in the Executive Branch of the U S Government.Only.She is a City or County Clerk..with Her Individual Rights.So No tacking a Person to Court for Exercising there Constitutional Rights will Result in Wasting Tax payers Money as well as the Court,s Time.the Gay people need to choose another Route as they Have the Choice to go where they can get there License Elsewhere.

  31. You are correct Elias, the supremes got it way wrong, but even so, there are other laws in KY that require the Govt use the “least restrictive means” when applying the law…meaning if there be a way to comply with the higher court without violating Kin’s ” freedom to exercise” then the Govt must. However to date, the Governor has not lifted a finger in following that law. Hopefully the judge will recognize this today and add his voice in calling for the Governor to do his job. Several bills have been written on only await the Legislature to return from recess, or the Gov could call a special session or write an executive order. Honor your Oath Governor. Failing that honor your oath Judge. Failing that Honor your Oath Sheriff. And if need be ….honor your Duty Cotizens! A section of KRS 446 follows and says “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s freedom of religion. The right to act or refuse to act in a manner motivated by a sincerely held religious belief may not be substantially burdened unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that it has a compelling governmental interest in infringing the specific act or refusal to act and has used the least restrictive means to further that interest. A “burden” shall include indirect burdens such as withholding benefits, assessing penalties, or an exclusion from programs or access to facilities.”

  32. The federal government, including SCOTUS, has no standing in the institution of marriage. Marriage is a contractual agreement between private parties. The states should get out of the business of marriage all together and this would not be a problem. Private citizens are free to contract with others at their own will and arrangement. As long as the state defines and licenses “marriage” this problem will persist. Government intervention is the problem here, not Christians, gays or polygamists!

  33. She should work in the private sector, preferably a religious setting if she cannot follow the law. Her beliefs should not be a part of her job. That is why we have separation of church and state. We need religion to stop meddling in our private lives. Religion is the cause of so much destruction and wars, which are unnecessary. She is entitled to believe what she wants, but not impose her will above the established law in our country. Why are your religious rights more important than our private lives? You live your lives and we can live ours & no I am not gay… just believe in freedom more than the rest of you apparently, as you seem freedom belongs only to you when it suits you.

    1. “She should work in the private sector, preferably a religious setting if she cannot follow the law.”

      All “laws” created within the USA must be in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution to be lawful, else they are but “color of law”, pretend laws created by one who serves within our government so one would expect them to only create laws that are lawful here in the USA.

      Unfortunately that is not true, many things called “laws”, “regulations” that are being enforced against the people have nothing lawfulness about them. They are enforced by the ignorant of what is allowed and DELEGATED to those who serve within our governments.

      What is worse, is that those Judges who were in the majority in deciding Lawrence were actually Treasonous in their use of FOREIGN LAWS, foreign regulations, foreign agreements to use as the basis for overturning an American law.

      American is a sovereign nation under the US Constitution and all that is in Pursuance thereof it IS the supreme law of our nation. All laws/regulations/treaties, etc MUST be in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution in order to be lawful and lawfully enforced against the American people, and that is not so in this judgement since it is based for a large part on FOREIGN LAW, foreign etc.

      This case must go through an real American trial; and ONLY all that is in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution and any precedences that follow it, and also in this case the Texas Constitution must be used and considered as the highest LAW of that state; those ONLY can be used to make a LAWFUL and binding decision by any Judge that serves within the US government as that is they are REQUIRED to base their decisions on. Not on foreign law, which is treason.

      Plus it is the US Constitution in its entirety, not only the last few months, etc.

      Thomas Jefferson: “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution.”

      James Madison: “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”

      Understand that because it is called a “law”, “regulation” etc does not mean that it is lawful and enforceable here in America. There is a written document if you would like to see what is allowed and delegated to those who serve within our governments and what is FORBIDDEN to them, the US Constitution.

    2. Well said.

      If she has a conflict between her religious obligations and her job, she needs to resign from her job. It doesn’t matter what the topic is – same sex marriage, dog licences or pistol permits. If you can’t function in the office because of your religious beliefs, you have to leave. You cannot deny government services to the community.

      I can only imagine the outcry against her on this site if she were denying pistol permits because of her religious beliefs.

  34. I back the judge. I think she has every right to deny them a marriage certificate. She is sticking to her guns and her beliefs. I think gay marriage is up to the person getting married. If they can’t get the marriage certificate in their county. Go to the next one. They will have no problem giving them what they want. The next county probably isn’t that far. I can go to 3 different county lines with in a half hour where I live. I myself think gay marriages in such quantity will be bad as I for see that these children raised in these kinds of families at least a good part of them will also be gay. What happened to what the bible says about marriage is between a man and a woman. I highly back that. So either they should go somewhere where it is easily accessed or simply live together as they have been for so many years. My prayers go out to this judge who is standing her ground. Obama has totally turned the USA upside down and it’s not getting any better. As far as the Federal Government goes I think they had no right in getting their nose into this affair. But we are talking about the horrible president we have in office now. So glad I didn’t vote for him. We the people must just take out stand and have to deal with what comes out of it. This country needs a lot of prayer and people to continue standing up for our rights.

  35. Article VI of the US Constitution forbids a religious test as a requirement for holding a position within the government. It is very plain and clear on that issue. The issue here in not the ability to hold a position within the government. It is the conflict that arises when a Christian is required to compromise his or her beliefs in the carrying out of their duties required by that position. I do not believe that a better response can be found to address the issue than the response given by John F. Kennedy.

    During the 1960 presidential campaign, the issue of whether the nation would for the first time elect a Catholic to the highest office in the land raised the specter of an implicit, but no less effective, religious test. John F. Kennedy, in his Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on 12 September 1960, addressed the question directly, saying:

    Neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection. For if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it.
    Contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me. Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views – in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
    But if the time should ever come – and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible – when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any other conscientious public servant would do likewise.
    But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith; nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election. If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I’d tried my best and was fairly judged.
    But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

    Amen, brother John. Well said. This, in my view, brings us to the greater issue. It is the issue of ripping the Most High God, the Judeo-Christian God out of the American conscience. Here I think that Jesus said it best.
    Luke 11:17 But he, knowing, their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.
    It is my take that this is exactly where the United States is standing today; divided and being brought to desolation. I believe that there is such a thing as a national conscience and, therefore, a national soul. This nation is an entity in the eyes of God. We are being judged by God Himself and we are in the process of desolation. Is there any way to turn things around and avoid the desolation? Of course. National revival is the answer to that. So I certainly believe that we are approaching a physical battle in our efforts to restore America to its origin. I do not believe, however, that we will be able to obtain that goal as long as we continue to ignore the spiritual warfare that is taking place for the soul of America.
    In conclusion, I leave you all with two more scriptures from that book that the enemies of America hate; the Holy Bible.

    Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.
    Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

    This is where I stand. I hope and pray that you all join me.

    Yoda, – out

  36. One thing many outside KY do not know is that we voted on a marriag act a few short years ago defining marriage as being between one man and one woman. It passed by a good margin. Our governor was one who took the case to the Supreme Court, it dhould have been our AG but he is a gutless POS who is running for governor now. So now we have federal courts and the federal government telling the people of KY we voted wrongfully, I do not think so. Also most of the gay couples coming to get marriage license from Rowan Coubty are driving for hours and even from other states when they can get it in any one of other 137 counties here in KY. They are nothing but trouble makers. I lived with my better half 28 years with no marriage license when she passed away suddenly. KY does not recognize common law marriage so I was SOL as to her affairs. Why should gays have more rights than I and my late spouse?
    Bottom line it is time to get the federal government back to taking care of federal matters of the nation. Let states handle state affairs. States can’t make treaties with countries but the federal government can. We have given way too much power from the states to the federal government. And as we all know the SCOTUS has become the liberal mouth piece of that POS they call our present gutless POTUS.
    Now with all that said IMHO she is not the poster child for this. She has been married 4 times. So she is picking what parts of “religion” she wants to obey. The people of KY spoke in a vote on marriage so let the people decide. If you want me o be real fair go back to before 1926 when not all states issued marriage license. All a marriage license is is a tax anyways. A piece of paper. True love between spouses is in the heart and mind.

  37. People who love each other, regardless of their respective genders, should be allowed to marry. If it offends someone of the Christian faith, that is unfortunate, but the best way to keep the peace is to agree to disagree and keep your faith in God according to your own inner beliefs and precepts, WITHOUT allowing those beliefs or precepts to affect how you do your job. If your religion is so restrictive that you can’t do your job because of your religious beliefs, then you should resign. And the government should have no jurisdiction over marriage between adults of any gender pairing whatsoever either. Problems arise because of Christians’ feeling they must enforce their belief systems on everyone else. If they would just follow their beliefs as they wish on their own, and leave others to do the same there would be far less strife and war on this planet. Why they feel impelled to force their beliefs on others or kill them for being infidels and heathens I will NEVER understand. It goes against everything Jesus taught us about loving each other.

    1. See? That’s what wrong here with these sodomites, they don’t respect others rights to believe in and uphold God’s laws. This is what you get with crooked courts, judges, politicians and so on. In case you aren’t familiar with the supreme courts being bought out and progressives hating God and all things Godly, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with James Madison, the author and many of the same founders. A limited government meant a one that “respected” strongly held “convictions”, regardless. Also you might want to familiarize yourself with the 10 commandments. They were for mans and societies well being, not for the lustful practice of sodomy to be welcomed and celebrated.

    2. It has nothing to do with offending me. It has everything to do with offending God Almighty. Marriage is HIS plan, HIS creation. It is NOT the creation of man, nor any governmental institution. The government simply uses it for it’s own ends such as taxation and social engineering.

  38. The Supreme Court Decision on gay marriage should convince anyone who still has any doubts that there simply is no political solution to the problems that face this country. The issue of gay marriage or gay sex should be a religious issue and only a religious issue. It is only a political issue because a representative government is supposed to represent the will of the people and We the People derive our rights and responsibilities from God. And We the People demand that our representatives respect Gods laws and will. God’s will is supreme and shall not be brushed away by the perverted life style choices of a minority. Contrary to what our usurper in chief says, America is still very much a Christian nation. God bless this women and her supporters for standing up to blatant tyranny of the minority. She is doing the only thing she can do as a person of faith and she should be joined by thousands of others across the country. If she is fined, thousands of Christians will send her money because she is standing strong on the front line against the enemies of God.

    We the People declare that, in the eyes of God, Gay marriage has “No standing!”

    1. Iowa Oath Keeper. I agree with you. Those who say we are being two-faced by not supporting the Supreme Court’s decision and therefore not supporting the Constitution are in the wrong. The Supreme Court is not the Supreme Law of the land-the word’s written in the Constitution are the supreme law of the land. If the Supreme Court rules that no American Citizens can own guns and says “That’s what is constitutional” I wonder how those detractors would feel?

      1. The KY statute prohibiting gay marriage violates the First Amendment which through the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

        By passing a law limiting marriage to one man and one woman, the KY legislature violated the Constitution. There are many Christian denominations and Jewish Reform Temples that accept same sex marriage and by passing such a law the KY legislature attempted to establish their religious beliefs as the law of the land. That is un-American.

  39. We do not have the right to evoke our religious beliefs on other people. Discrimination cannot be tolerated. Everyone has the right to marry whom they chose. That’s what makes this Country of ours so great. The clerk should be fired and the marriage license issued.

    1. If you must apply to the government for a “license” to marry then you don’t have the right to marry. Marriage was not a government issue and states did not issue licenses until some states decided to pass a law that said (in layman’s terms) two people are not married unless they get a license from the state. The reason those states did this was to deny interracial marriages from happening. Both ultra conservatives and ultra liberals on the issue of gay marriage could be appeased if we went back to the way things were done before: If you want to be married to somebody-move in with them and say you’re married. If you have some sort of religious beliefs about marriage-then find a church who shares those beliefs to do a ceremony for you.

    2. wrong! our country was founded on christian values and our bible tells us that marriage is between a woman and a man, it also says that having sex with other men or animals is an abomination to the lord! You can not force me to give up my christian values to except your sinful ways!!!

    3. There is no discrimination. The concept of rights based on what gender one has sexual relations with is a fabrication, along with the contrived notion that one needs government approval for a man and a woman to be married are fabrications of stupid men.

  40. Religion has nothing to do with a government issued marriage certificate. It’s not about religious liberty. If she, or others, can get away with this then anyone can claim a religious exemption from anything and everything. She is NOT part of the ceremony, and she is NOT attending it. By her logic an atheist should have the right to deny her and her husband a marriage license. I think she likes the attention. I wish Oath Keepers was not even writing articles about this…

    1. If this is so, the tell us what you fear, keeping in mind the principals this nation was founded on, Judeo-Christian principals.

      Or does this open the door for polygamy and other forms of “Marriage” so long as those clad in black robes ordain it?

    2. As long as it says “marriage”, it does.

      Her beliefs indicate that her reference is biblical, and there is no prohibition to marriage by unbelievers in the bible.

  41. I truly disappointed with the most of the comments. The inability for some to look at the situation objectively and see this is a legal matter and not a religious matter. The clerks works for the county government and therefore is a part of the us government. No one is denying her right to hold religious beliefs. The problem is she was elected and agreed to do the job she’s being paid to do. In her chain a command a decision was made, she needs to follow it or step aside or be removed. We all hold personal beliefs on many issues but whether your at work or in the military you will be given directions that you may not agree with, you either follow them or pay the consequences This woman isn’t courageous, she’s ignorant. Ignorant to the law and ignorant to the obligation she took when she accepted the job.
    It’s our job to vote for the people we believe will guide the country in the direction necessary. If you don’t like the policies, get with folks of similar beliefs and get the vote out. If these polices are against gods will them I’m sure they will be accountable.

    Focus on the action, is she within her legal right to deny these licenses? She’s not, she has her directive from the highest court in the land. The court defined by the constitution to check the powers of the executive branch. If you don’t like the executive branch make a change by voting and getting other to vote.

    Oath Keepers should defend the constitution and the right’s it protects. If you don’t like something you work to change it, you don’t defy it unless it’s in violation of the constitution. This is a legal matter and not a religious matter.

    1. Then show me in the constitution where marriage is a specifically enumerated right, and not simply a political legal fabrication.

      Marriage is an entirely religious matter that has been co-opted by government for it’s own ends.

  42. This is just one of the disastrous results coming from electing a socialist as president. His appointments to the SCOUS are all “activists” jurists and, as such, view the Constitution as a “living document” to be altered as the views and mores of the public sway and in ways that fit the agenda. The matter of marriage and of abortion are not matters that are “constitutional” and should be left to the states to decide. A SCOUS that insists on legislating instead of doing their one and only job of “interpreting” the constitution, weakens the constitution – and they know it. Taking the United States to a socialist state is the goal of many in America today. They don’t have the balls to openly claim it – yet – – but their actions, their focus and their rhertoric unveils the truth. And most of the rest of us are too consumed with the sillinesses we have become addicted to and just don’t care. Got to go. Time to check my FaceBook page!!

  43. Here we are arguing about gay marriage, talking about gay marriage, and having gay marriage shoved down our throats. I could care less if gays enter into a civil union of some kind so they can say their married, and have a legal document on file with their county or origin… it isn’t going to make a damn bit of difference in my life. But while everybody talks about this specific debate the federal gov’t continues to break the highest laws of our country, it continues to encroach into our daily lives, it continues to deny the state’s sovereignty, it spies on every single American, and we all know their end game is absolute control. And here we sit arguing over gay marriage.

  44. I apologize, as I cannot watch the whole video or read the entire article, and am almost afraid to begin this comment as I just don’t have the time to fully respond. I really only checked this article out because I was deeply afraid that Oath Keepers had forgotten the Constitution; lately it seems the idea that “religious freedom” was one of the founding principles of America has been completely forgotten.

    So here in America, I get to choose my own God. I even get to choose to not have a god if I so desire. While I can’t exactly say that here in America, I have the same freedom with my job — where Gods are concerned, I can craft one to my exact liking, but where jobs are concerned, I gotta take whatever’s offered — still, I do have the choice to realize my job no longer suits my purposes and that it is time I find another one. I can even, if I *really* *really* mean it, walk from my job the second I don’t like it any more — yes, that will probably cause me hardship — but in truth, in order for God to know I really really mean it, hardship is immaterial, is it not? I mean, we’re talking about my relationship with The Dude in this scenario, correct? What hardship is too much to bear? Word has it that accepting a Cross is well within reason . . .

    So stick to your guns, Kim, I am certain that everyone at Oath Keepers can support you in what it takes to make a stand, *but* MAKE YOUR STAND. If you’re doing this for God, do you think He isn’t in on the fact that regardless of “His Wishes”, you are now stealing your paycheck, because you have made a deal with your employers to do what they want you to do in trade for your paycheck, that deal is your WORD, and honestly, I can’t see how your soul is any cleaner accepting money from this group and refusing to give out same-sex marriage licenses than your soul would be if you accepted money from them while refusing to participate in human sacrifices. Then again, I have crafted my own God, and I do truly honestly believe I cannot pull the wool over His/Her eyes, and I can see the eye roll at “well, I mean, You know there are wronger wrongs, right? There’s a certain level of wrong that’s actually not the wrongest wrong, You know that, right? And it’s gotta be wrong-wrong, maybe even Super-Wrong-Wrong, before sacrificing my life to my faith in Your Word, right?”

    When you get right down to it, souls are like bladders — the possessor is the only one who can do anything about either. Buff out your own soul, that’s the only one any God is going to ask you about.

  45. She should be 1. removed from office, 2. prosecuted to the limit of the law for contempt of court. If she has problem with a legal law and states its against her religion then she should resign as religious beliefs DO NOT BELONG WHILE PERFORMING DUTIES PERTAINING TO GOVERNMENT WORK.

    1. So, we are to create a whole class of political prisoners in this nation. Jail Christians just like despots through the ages?

      Imagine that. A nation where you conscience gets you thrown in the dungeon.

  46. Well Bless her soul…what a good Christian…NOT! .There’s nothing worse than a frickin hypocrite, I can’t stand them…FIRE HER! This is from US News and World Report….

    The Kentucky county clerk facing potentially stiff penalties for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses has been married four times, raising questions of hypocrisy and selective application of the Bible to her life.

    The marriages are documented in court records obtained by U.S. News, which show that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis divorced three times, first in 1994, then 2006 and again in 2008.

    She gave birth to twins five months after divorcing her first husband. They were fathered by her third husband but adopted by her second. Davis worked at the clerk’s office at the time of each divorce and has since remarried.

    1. George, Do you happen to know the specific date the woman came to Christ? Do you understand that one can repent at any time? Are you presuming her adherence to god’s laws was always in place? And finally, do you understand that in some cases divorce is Biblical and allowed?

      You assume too much.

  47. Up until he mid 19th century in America a couple was married under common law. It was an agreement between a man and a woman and presided over by a representative of the church. The only involvement of Government was to record the event. As race relations became more divisive leading up to the Civil War, the Government adopted the responsibility of ‘granting’ marriage certificates. Along with their newly seized authority they imposed rules. One rule banned mixed marriage. As recently as October 2009 a Louisiana Justice of the Peace refused to issue a marriage license to a mixed raced couple.

  48. Noone has the RIGHT to be married. We have the right to pursue a marriage partner and hope that person is likeminded, but there is no right to be married. If it were a natural right to be married, then the government would be responsible for making sure that each person had a marriage partner. Then people could sue the government for not providing a marriage partner or for not providing one that met personal specifications. No can do. Therefore, gays cannot demand that they have the right to marry. Marriage is a PRIVILEGE given by God specifically to unions of one man and one woman.

  49. Kim Davis wouldn’t be in the position to have to risk jail time (and possibly even her life to some homosexual) if not for the late 18th-century founders’ rejection of Yahweh as sovereign and His law as supreme. Yes, the founders are responsible if she loses her life or goes to jail and so is anyone today who promotes the biblically seditious Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

    CLUE: There was no homosexual agenda period in 17th-century Colonial America whose governments of, by, and for God were established upon Yahweh’s unchanging moral law, including Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.

    What America is enduring today are the consequences of the whirlwind we’re reaping as a result of the wind sown by the late 18th-century founders when they replaced the 17th-century Colonial governments for their own humanistic government of, by, and for the people based upon capricious man-made Enlightenment and Masonic concepts.

    “[B]ecause they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law … they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind….” (Hosea 8:1,7)

    Had the constitutional framers (like their 17th-century Christian Colonial predecessors) established government and society upon Yahweh’s morality as reflected in His commandments, statutes, and judgments, there would be no homosexual agenda today because no sodomite or lesbian would dare risk exposing themselves to petition government for their “rights,” and this righteous lady wouldn’t be in the vulnerable position she finds herself in.

    For more regarding these two polar opposite governments, Google free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” and then scroll down to Chapter 3 “The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH.”

  50. When we take an oath of office which she did, and can no longer comply with that oath, we need to resign and cancel it. The Bible says “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and unto God that which is God’s.” I agree with Elias that the govm’t has no business in marriage, but she did take an oath. As minister, I have taken the position that I will not marry same-sex people nor will I sign a secular marriage license. I will issue a certificate of Holy Matrimony and sign that. The couple can get the license signed by a Notary Public.

    The government issued license is another case of the government taking away a natural right and SELLING IT BACK TO THE CITIZENS as with many licenses they “issue.”

  51. The U.S. Constitution Guarantees a right to a trial by jury. It Guarantees that your rights/freedom cannot be taken without due process of law (which includes a jury trial). Moments ago this county clerk -a democrat-was sent to jail and placed in the custody of federal marshals by a judge appointed by Republican George W. Bush. The judge did this without her having been convicted of a crime. The constitution is being completely ignored here-will the oath Keepers come to her aid? Will the local police uphold their oath to the Constitution (no matter how you feel about Gay Marriage this is wrong to happen to her without even having a trial by jury). Today it is her-tomorrow it could be gay rights supporters packed away without due process of law. Remember the poem that came out of Nazi Germany entitled “First they came” It is happening again. Agree or disagree with her-she has the right to her trial by jury.

    1. You are obviously unfamiliar with the law. Ms. Davis has been held in contempt for violating the judge’s order. This is not a criminal matter and, therefore, there is no right to jury trial.

  52. Kim Davis is my hero. She will be in my heart and prayers. God be with you and protect you from the fools that are trying to assault you. Kim.

  53. It comes down to the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage as nothing more than a mere opinion. The federal government nor the SCOTUS ever had any obligation or authority to rule on marriage. And in doing so and calling it law, they violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as well as the 10th Amendment.

    I don’t think the argument here is whether or not gay marriage is right or wrong. The legal definition of marriage should be reserved to the States or to We the People as it is not one of the delegated powers of the federal government to govern. And per the 10th, “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.”

  54. GOD’S Law doesn’t require ANY LICENSE to get married. Before the Civil War, We The People got married without any License of any kind because we were a “citizen of Georgia” or “citizen of Minnesota”, etc., etc. ,After the Civil War the 14th Amendment was passed under Martial Law and then Title 42, Section 1981, 1982, 1988, United States Code, standing OUTSIDE The Constitution, came into being and Everyone became a “citizen of the United States. Read what and where the United States resides in Article 1, Section 8, next to last paragraph. It says it is ” _ _ not to exceed 10 Miles square) so that puts you under their Jurisdiction “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, _ _ ” Now if you read the definition of License you will understand. “License, Permission to do what is otherwise against the (Common) Law, a trespass or a Tort.” The Common Law does NOT Sanction a Marriage between Homosexuals or between Black and White. Read the definition in Black Law Dictionary so THEY created a “Marriage License” to do what was against the Common Law.

  55. It appears in the Constitution God is higher power not named after any particular religion though freedom liberty are rightful to us all, seems they were careful in framing this as they knew who the enemy was and in plain sight. With a caliphate and Taliban trying to get into gov’t already have the Israel as they have been known thousands of years pushing their agenda on the populace, in it may be a good thing to separate this even though we are built on good morals. Maybe she should step down rather than be pulled down. When it comes to public and private memorials their whinning opportunist need to stop, ownership has right to serve whom they want.

  56. This is so simple that it seems that it must be complicated. Once upon a time a couple wanted to get married, that couple just happened to be interracial. The local government decided that since it was illegal the fix was to charge a fee to allow that couple to wed. Hence a new revenue stream was created. The word License: (Permission to do something that is ordinarily illegal or not permitted) If you submit to the government like you are licensing an animal then they have you seeking permission to do something that is not theirs to permit. When you understand that giving the state dominion over your body and mind you are a slave. Marry who you want without permission, without paying a fee, and without needed a piece of paper to validate what is already yours. Stop begging to be Slaves and live like free Americans in a Republic. DR. Ron Paul already said that it’s not the governments business whom marries whom.

  57. Though a man and woman produce, obviously we have a creator. I think men should be caring for their off spring be responsible vs using the womb of many carelessly. Now that I think about it marriage may have been a means of genocide and reduced number of children a man would have with one woman, since the law makers of those times where reducing the number of many races as in today, and they have put a lot of blood on our hands as a country. Religion to me is ancient Babylon world one central bank domination been a work thousands of years. Evil for sure.

  58. Do what the people want. This nation was founded on Christin values and we have always lived by them. Communist, socialist muslims and other groups lead by likes of George Soros & Saul_Alinsky who want to destroy our country. The president appoints liberal judges to push his queer agenda. They change the meaning of words et “Marriage = between a MAN & WOMAN” and other words are removed from the English language. This is a tactic used by communist and Hitler. In California we voted for traditional marriage, and the SOCIALIST judges OVERTURNED WHAT THE PEOPLE WANTED. We left England to make a Christin country not controlled by the King or his government! http://www.prageruniversity.com/Ten-Commandments/The-Ten-Commandments-Introduction.html#.Veiabxlsugc

    1. Treaty Of Tripoli

      Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

      It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

  59. Why are the oath keepers not defending this woman and busting her out? the second amendment was written to defend the first amendment, this is socialist tyranny! America is the only free country in the world with guaranteed rights, and you never use them while they are being trampled over constantly! W T F

    1. I agree with bangbang. Oath Keepers should go do a Bundy Ranch on the jail, this lady is in, and go take the judge who jailed her into custody and hold him/her until he/she learns that you don’t mess with people’s moral rights to believe and practice their beliefs as they choose. I don’t give a god damn if it’s a Supreme Court judge or what. Take them all into custody and keep them out of any court. No man/woman has the right to interfere in another man or woman’s god given, free will, choice to believe as he/she chooses and/or force their beliefs on another.

      1. I absolutely agree with John and bangbang.This IS the time when a well organized militia is necessary to free her from tyrannical gov.
        The Constitution that she took an oath to defend is not being defended by anyone. When and who will defend??!!
        She is in need of justice and the people who are holding her should be removed from their authority on the grounds they violated their oath to defend her rights from both foreign and domestic enemies. Any elected official who defies chooses to neglect the oath should be tried with some form of treason
        Oath keepers, Please for our country help defend this woman. she needs presence and this would be a perfect opportunity to demonstrate an open carry day in front of that jail she sits in and show her that she is not alone.

      2. I agree with BangBang and John. Christians have a duty to defend Christians and all of us who swore the Oath have a duty to the Constitution here. The First Amendment prohibits the Legislature from legislating in this area and that means the Court can’t either (and there’s a whole other conversation there too). They must either right this unjust, unconstitutional action immediately or we must restore the Constitution by whatever means necessary. Maybe a demonstration will do or maybe it won’t. Doesn’t change the requirement that is laid upon us.

  60. You can be on either side of the homosexual “marriage” issue, make you case, and your arguments all you wish.

    But if you aren’t terrified that the black robes, under political directive and social engineering are about to create an entirely new class of political prisoners (Bible believing Christians), the get to the fire station hand have yourself checked for a pulse.

    And to all my good friends in the “I will not comply” movement, noting that I will stand with you anytime, please use this sad episode in American history as a cautionary tale.

    It’s not about you gun. It’s about raw power, and who s going to have it, and the bad men in this nation are just beginning to flex their muscles.

  61. Update. YESTERDAY: Senate President Robert Stivers submitted a short, but poignant amicus brief on behalf of Kim making a number of points around the fact that because of the Obergefell decision, there are numerous areas that Kentucky law is not in compliance, so there should be no way to hold the County Clerks accountable until the General Assembly has given them guidance on all the aspects of their “re-defined” job.

    TODAY: Judge Bunning’s decision today was that Kim Davis go to jail for contempt of court until she agrees to authorize or have her deputy clerks authorize same-sex marriages. Because she is resolute, what Kim needs is clarity from Gov. Beshear. She is going to jail only because the Gov. Beshear has not acted. It is my belief that Gov. Beshear should act immediately with an Executive Order or call a Special Session of the Assembly. Ultimately, he is responsible for her plight. She is paying the cost of the Governor’s refusal to act. Kentucky law literally states that he MUST ACT (and he has not). If he would act, BOTH sides could have their freedoms and BOTH could satisfy their consciences.

  62. Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults, no religious action is needed for a marriage to be legally binding. Also, I wonder if this woman was granted her THREE divorces by a judge or was it her church,…

    1. This isn’t a gay issue. This is a Constitution issue. If you can’t see that why are you on this site?

  63. Davis is making the wrong argument for a right action.

    You can’t argue religious law in an American Court. Not Christian, not Sharia, not any. Excluding the Bible from court pleadings is no more a war on Christianity than is excluding the Torah a war on Judaism, or the Qu’ran a war on Islam, or the I Ching a war on Taoism. Regardless of your own religion, you can only argue legislative law and court cases clarifying it.

    This is not a religious issue, it is a government encroachment issue. And frankly, it was created by religious people who want a government strong enough to give them what THEY want but not so strong that it can take it away.

    Religions are supposed to proselytize, not legislate. So stop complaining about losing control over some ill-advised legislation. Repeal it instead.

    Specifically, the issue at hand. It was created by unconstitutional marriage laws restricting and purporting to license private non-destructive private contracts. That some of us see that contract as religious does not make this a religious issue in the courts. It’s a constitutional issue that is now made even more difficult by a badly written decision. It’s badly written because the Court should not have ordered the issuance of more licenses, it should have ordered that the law be applied equally. But had it done that then the obvious would have shone through: there oughtn’t to be a law.

    It’s a simple matter of equal protection. If you don’t want the state licensing an alternative version of something anyone can do anyway as a matter of right, don’t require a license at all.

    Davis is taking the right action by refusing all licenses: now she needs to argue the correct legal argument: since marriage can’t be prevented to the general adult public it is not illegal and there is no compelling state interest in the license.

    The legislatures need to repeal marriage laws and get the clerks out of the people’s business. There would be no revenue loss because the license fee is less than the filing fee for a multi-page Public Notice that sets the record of the marriage, which itself should be done privately (outside the purview of government). If that means deleting the jobs of Justice of the Peace where so many now have no other duties and of what in some states are called Marriage Commissioners, so be it.

    You can’t have it both ways. You can’t demand religious freedom and at the same time use government to define the world according to your religion in preference to someone else’s religion. That is the crux of the word “respecting” in the First Amendment: preference. All other non-binding resolutions and proclamations aside, the First Amendment says that, at least since 1791, we don’t do that here.

    Let’s don’t us do the same thing we complain of against the other side: let’s stop reading into the constitution things that simply aren’t there.

    And please, don’t come back at me with yet another list of “proofs” that Christianity is an exception to the First Amendment. I’ve been through them all, and nothing in any of them trumps the constitution.

    PS. No, I am not a liberal, and Yes, I am an Oathkeeper, former Army and other such, and a strict constructionist defender of the constitution. Which means I read what it actually says, not what I might wish it said.

    1. You pretty much nailed it Osprey, the First Amendment makes no notice of a particular religion or worship thereof. Religions are a thing of Man, not of God. His word is Truth and Exists as It is Alive. Those wanting to bow down to a rock can do so, and have the right to do so.

  64. There are two Constitutions – the real one is for Living people, who are spirit dwelling in the flesh, Living On The Land, and have a ‘certificate of Live Birth” showing a footprint / hand and / or fingerprint to verify that truth and inalienable rights. This is a simple subject, yet complicated by deceit, intentional usurpation by fraud on a massive scale. Every one born here in the USA can, if they so chose, again be part of “The Republic Of The United States” – by serving a Declaration of Independence on White paper, signed in Blue ink, with a Red Seal – (thumbprint) – THAT is actually what the Red, White and Blue stands for, it was removed from public schools and libraries, history lessons etc ANYWAY – This video will help explain the difference – according to the real Constitution I would have to say the answer is a straight up “NO, the Federal Government has absolutely no authority to involve itself in your marriage at all.” But that’s just my point of view – I’ve never attended a single ‘Political Science’ class in my Life, I believe that people who pay for politicians deserve to have them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R63AH_LneaQ

  65. This woman has failed in her sworn duty to faithfully discharge the duties of her office by failing to serve all of her constituents. A civil servant has no lawful authority from either the Bible and/or law that gives her the right to discriminate against a law abiding citizen asking to exercise their right to legally marry in the eyes of government. After the court made its decision, anyone who could not in good conscience continue to do their job according to the law, then stepping down should have been the honorable thing to do. In my opinion, this Clerk is doing this for the attention and likes it being about her and her “strength in her faith” versus the “ungodly.” What a shame. Maybe she should pay attention to her own relationship with God, and not worry so much about other people’s failings.

      1. I’m not sure that Oath Keepers has any stance on this, so I do not think you can be in any position to define Kim as either being, or not being, an Oath Keeper. This is a discussion, not a hearing.
        Thank you for reading here.
        Salute!
        Elias Alias, editor

    1. Here is the oath she swore: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

      I think you’re wrong, Kim. This isn’t a gay issue. This is a Constitution issue. I won’t comment on why your comments on Christianity are incorrect.

    2. You would be incorrect. What the supreme court did was unconstitutional. They are to rule on the constitutionality of a law. They are not to make laws. If they rule it unconstitutional it is supposed to go back to the STATE that created the law and they are to make it constitutional or scrap it. Which would mean if its a law defining who can receive a marriage license, then no one would be eligible to receive a license if the state decides to scrap the law. If you are going to issue licenses of any kind, you need instructions on how and to whom you issue it. A Law. Marriage license’s are sanctioned by the states and issued by the county clerks, NOT the federal government. The federal government, beyond the courts, can not be in on this issue. If there is no law on the books defining who can receive a marriage license, the county clerks should cease issuing all marriage licenses until the state legislatures resolve the issue. She has ceased issuing all marriage licenses. The federal judge ordering her to issue licenses has over stepped his authority.
      If the county clerk is a Christian, by the authority of the word of God, they are not to carry out laws that go against God’s law. God has stated homosexuality is an abomination. (Laymen’s terms, it’s really, really bad.) The county should then follow their due process on replacing the clerk if they see fit to do so. When she was elected to the position they weren’t issuing licenses to homosexuals. They changed the rules on her mid-game.

  66. From Mike Huckabee: Kim is asking the perfect question: ‘Under what law am I authorized to issue homosexual couples a marriage license?’ That simple question is giving many in Congress a civics lesson that they never got in grade school.

    The Supreme Court cannot and did not make a law. They only made a ruling on a law. Congress makes the laws. Because Congress has made no law allowing for same-sex marriage, Kim does not have the Constitutional authority to issue a marriage license to homosexual couples.

    Kim is a person of great conviction. When people of conviction fight for what’s right they often pay a price, but if they don’t and we surrender, we will pay a far greater price for bowing to the false God of judicial supremacy. Government is not God. No man – and certainly no unelected lawyer – has the right to redefine the laws of nature or of nature’s God. Five unelected lawyers have abused their power by ruling in favor of a national right to same-sex marriage with no legal precedent and with nothing in our Constitution to back it up. They have violated American’s most fundamental right guaranteed by our Constitution — religious liberty.
    http://www.westernjournalism.com/mike-huckabee-brings-up-the-one-thing-about-kim-davis-no-ones-talking-about-but-should-be/

    Also this from Republican Senate President Robert Stivers : “The Supreme Court ruling has completely obliterated the definition of marriage and the process for obtaining a marriage license in Kentucky,” Stivers said in a news release. “The General Assembly will be compelled to amend many sections of Kentucky law, not just for the issuance of marriage licenses, to comply with the recent Supreme Court decision.”
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/03/gop-kentucky-state-senate-president-defends-county-clerk/

  67. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give any of the branches of government the authority to change an institution established & sanctified by God. The supposed very tolerant LGBT crowd is definitely the most intolerant, atrocious in attitude and aggressive in the defense of their elected sexual orientation. Deep down inside, they know they are wrong but they don’t have the courage to drop the bad habit and admit their fault.
    Leviticus 18
    v. 22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.
    23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion.
    24 Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you.”

    Clearly, the Lord was casting out and giving the lands from these sinful and corrupt nations to the Hebrews after their liberation from Egypt, and God specifically mentions these abominable sins for He created Man & Woman to be as one in union. So it was spoken, so it is this way. Man can only corrupt and twist with the lies from the evil fallen one something which was meant to be pure and holy as instituted by the Lord. I hope they can see the error of their ways…

  68. Semper fidelis, Elias! Thank you for posting this on your website.

    I agree, the Feds have NO Constitutional authority to redefine marriage (Article 1 Section 8, Congress’ enumerated powers), and NOWHERE are the courts given final interpretive power of the law or the Constitution (Article 3). Instead, they may DECIDE CASES. That’s all, folks! We’ve been had!

    Would that the States had the moxie to refuse to carry out this rebellious (and abominable) SCOTUS decision. Only Alabama, led by Chief Justice Moore, is as far as I know putting up a fight.

    “He Who sits in the heavens laughs…then He shall terrify them in His fury” (Psalm 2:4,5)

  69. With all of the other major issues we are facing in our country, such as, illegal immigrants flooding the country, Obama flying in countless thousands of undocumented Syrian Muslim refugees, flying in Somali Muslim immigrants, on the brink of racial war, Obama violating the Constitution almost daily, filling our government (DHS) with Muslim Brotherhood members, working with the UN to disarm America, trying to sign a bogus nuclear deal with our sworn enemy, trying to sell our Sovereignty via the foreign trade deal (TPP) and the list could go on for another few pages, and we are interested in this bogus marriage issue ? If the woman does not want to marry the same sex couples….fine, simply go to another clerk that will do it…….we best concentrate on the real issues that are actually sinking this nation like I mentioned above and be prepared to defend her against ALL adversary’s…….they are numerous, and they are ready to strike. Let the marriage stuff straighten itself out. Pay attention and get busy !!

  70. Since when does government decide if a person should be compelled to violate their own conscience? If Mrs. Davis is exercising her free will in accordance with her faith, as protected by the First Amendment, and is not bringing physical, property or financial harm to anyone, then why is she being treated like a criminal? If the First Amendment protection of religious freedom does not protect the individual, then who does it protect? The agenda based social group? Simply stated, if the First Amendment means that government may not show favoritism towards any one religion, then it also is true that the government may not infringe upon any religion (and by extension anyone who claims such religion) unless the practitioners of a specific religion bring physical, property, or financial harm (i.e. 9/11) to others.

    The overbearing socialist driven agenda that comes from the current Obama administration is driving a wedge into the very fabric of American culture. It is up to grass-roots movements such as Convention of States, Tea Party, and Oath Keepers, to name a few, who must be the tip of the spear in restoring the Constitutional principles envisioned and enacted by our founding fathers. Simply put, we must step up and be the new Sons and Daughters of Liberty.

    We, the Oath Keepers, must be prepared to act in defending the people, and the Constitution in times like these. Regardless of where one takes a stand on the marriage issue, the larger issue of an over-zealous and uber intrusive government is of utmost importance. It’s time for us to put that government back in it’s place, before we as Constitutional Americans have no place to call home.

  71. I’m sorry if this sounds snarky, but it is absolutely wrong for people to continue to call what SCOTUS did with the Obergfell decision “law”. That is part of why Mrs. Davis is standing firm upon her convictions. There is no legislated law that dictates “homosexual marriage”. but there is law, known as the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution, that allows citizens of the United States “Freedom of Religion”. That law supercedes any opinion the Supreme Court puts out. Courts opinions are the worst kind of foundation for supposed law, as the opinion will change from time to time and our Constitution is stable and unchanging unless changed by the proper authority, the citizens of the United States.

    I would ask, as someone earlier also inquired: will Oath Keepers do as they have done at other times and provide some sort of protection for people or (as it appears it will happen) churches who run afoul of the progressive socialists who thwart and subvert the law and our rights? I am not attempting to rhetorical or suggest that they won’t. I simply do not know and want to know. Speaking for myself, I will be there and exercise my rights under law, much as the Apostle Paul did when the Roman government illegally beat and imprisoned him for proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I hope there are others among OK who will stand with me.

  72. Elias, I can’t show you where it is in our Constitution that the government can stick it’s nose in marriage. I guess it’s none of there d%#n business.

    1. Stormin1, I can’t find that authority in the Constitution either. It occurred to me way back in the 1970s, after I had jumped through the government’s hoops to get myself married, that I never needed some silly permission slip from a danged government to have the relationship with my mate. But by then, you see, I had already returned home from Viet Nam and brought back from that Oriental insanity a whole new appraisal of the role of “government” in my life. I see no authorization for any government to attempt to tax or regulate my life as a natural human being who went to war to preserve “freedom” in my beloved country.

      Freedom is the absence of externally-originating control.

      When any outside authority requires a license, it is to that degree attempting to control, which is tantamount to assuming ownership over one, which is, to some degree or another, slavery. I figured that I don’t need some silly piece of government-issue paper between me and my woman.

      That was long ago, and it still rings true to me today. One of my primary “Unalienable Rights” is full self-ownership. I claim that. Any collective which may be thinking it can own me, control me, regulate me by force, fakery, or fine needs to rethink its position. Any damn government that wants my participation may petition me for my permission, which I may consent to give (as I do today while living here in modern times), by honoring that collective’s founding legal charter. When government itself fails to act according to its Constitution, I withdraw my consent. I am a man, and I retain full right of self ownership, graced with dignity, reinforced by an active will in an awakened mind, and allegedly protected by the very document which the government refuses to honor.

      If it ain’t in article one, section eight, it goes to the States or to “We The People”, or, finally, as the ultimate source of all legitimacy and authority, to the individual soul enmeshed in a human body, which is directly and eternally connected to the God (Nature’s God) which created that human being — which no silly government can create or duplicate. The damned government needs to stay out of that space inside a living man’s life. When it encroaches therein, it has ceased to be “government” and morphed itself into “tyranny”. That shall be opposed so long as I draw breath on Planet Earth. 😉

      https://oathkeepers.org/the-clue-in-the-two-letter-word/

      Salute!
      Elias Alias, editor

  73. Since Mrs Davis works for a secular municipal corporation (with its own Dunn & Bradstreet number), which is part of the Kingdoms of this world under Satan, and Yeshua did not contract with either Satan or Pilate, this should be interesting as Davis is now in a secular jail.
    Perhaps we should inhabit Yahweh’s gov’t instead of trying to take-over Satan’s.
    How we got here:
    https://scannedretina.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/corporate_america_reduced.pdf

  74. “The movement for uniform state laws dates back more than a century. The Alabama State Bar called for uniformity as early as 1881, but it was nearly a decade later, at the 12th annual meeting of the ABA in 1889, that the legal community made its formal motion to work for uniformity in the then 44 state union. New York was the first state to move, appointing three commissioners in 1890. Other states soon heeded the call: Delaware, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania attended the first Conference in Saratoga Springs, New York, in 1892. The commissioners wasted no time. They urged adoption of three acts and proposed raising the marrying age to 18 for males and 16 for females. They also adopted a table of weights and measures, noting that with the exception of wheat, legal weights of a bushel varied in all the states.

    “By the turn of the century, 33 states and two territories had appointed commissioners on uniform laws. In 1910, only Nevada and the Territory of Alaska still had not; they came aboard in 1912.”

    Scroll down to “100 YEARS OF UNIFORM LAWS, An Abridged Chronology”, especially down to “1911”:
    http://www.barefootsworld.net/usfraud.html

  75. You already know there is NOWHERE in the US Constitution where it says anything about this subject. In fact 98% of all the crap being heaped on Americans today by the FEDERAL Government has no origination within the parameters of the Constitution.
    Most of it is from the CON-artists we label politicians who in all actuality should be CONvicts.

    When it comes to Kim Davis, she recognizes the mark of the beast and does not want to take it by giving into the pressured crimes of the political demonic Satan worshiping garbage running New Babylon.

    She like many does not want to take the path that she surely believes leads to hell.

    It does not matter what anyone else believes, the only thing that matters is what SHE BELIEVES and I honor that.

    And to think I was submitted for a Congressional Medal of Honor and I think this way. Which may be one reason that I did not get it and the other was actually because I was not of ethnic origin as per Bill Clinton.

    1. She is the GREAT DECIEVERS, , she is living in sin, and is not entitled to speak for GOD
      Luke 16:18
      New International Version
      “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
      King James Bible
      Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
      HE WHO IS OUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE

      1. Harold, her past marriages and divorces occurred BEFORE she became a Christian and are therefore totally, totally irrelevant to this case.

        Your logic would disqualify St. Paul from being a preacher and missionary because he used to be Saul of Tarsus, murderer and persecutor of the Church.

  76. This case is interesting in a number of ways …

    1. Do judges legislate or interpret the law? One could argue that the Supreme Court falls into the category of making law (legislating) by overriding the wishes of state legislatures. Why are unelected judges entitled to make law? Where does that power/authority come from?

    2. What should society do when the judicial function (making laws or interpreting laws) is unilaterally defined by judges? “I’m a judge. The law is what I say it is.” The reality of judges is that they are appointed for life with little or no prospect of being removed from office.

    3. What does it mean to keep your oath of office? Is an oath-keeper’s duty to obey what some judge says the law is or obey one’s moral code and interpretation of the law? Is a law enforcement officer or a soldier obeying their oath when “higher authority” tells them what the law is and orders them to obey?

    4. When a public officials believes that an illegal/immoral order is issued, doesn’t a public official have the option of simply leaving office? It is disturbing that the Clerk wants to maintain her elected office (the marks of an entitlement mentality) rather than say “I disagree with this order and, in good conscious, can no longer hold my office which requires me to enforce this law.”

    5. If this is an illegal/immoral order, why have no other Clerks or government officials refused to comply? One county clerk out of tens of thousands is definitely a minority. This does not bode well if one believes that law enforcement or soldiers will actually disobey illegal orders if push comes to shove. German war criminals argued that they were “just following orders.” I suspect that attitude persists among American office holders, as well.

    1. Whoever wrote the comment above should be hired to assist OathKeepers in some form. The logic presented in a well-written matter would make him an excellent ambassador for OK.

    2. “Do judges legislate or interpret the law?”

      Neither, their duty is to make the decision if the law is “in Pursuance thereof” the US Constitution.

      As is said in Tucker’s Blackstone, Volume I, Chapter 1 regarding how the Oath and duties assigned to the judicial branch applies to the judiciary:
      “But here a very natural, and very material, question arises: how are these customs or maxims to be known, and by whom is their validity to be determined?
      The answer is, by the judges in the several courts of justice.
      They are the depositaries of the laws; the living oracles, who must decide in all cases of doubt, and who are bound by an oath to decide ACCORDING to the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.
      Now this is a positive law, fixed and established by custom, which custom is evidenced by judicial decisions; and therefore CAN NEVER BE DEPARTED FROM BY ANY MODERN JUDGE WITHOUT A BREACH OF HIS OATH AND THE LAW. For herein there is nothing repugnant to natural justice;…”

      Thomas Jefferson: “…To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…and their power is more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruption of time and party, its members would become despots….”

      US Constitution, Article III Section 2: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;…”

      “What should society do when the judicial function (making laws or interpreting laws) is unilaterally defined by judges?… The reality of judges is that they are appointed for life with little or no prospect of being removed from office.”

      Ignore the edict and remove the judge as they are NOT in office for life. They are allowed to remain in office as long as they use “Good Behaviour”. It was the judicial branch that said they are in for “life”, which they are, good or bad behavior, as long as we do not remove them.

      US Constitution, Article III. Section. 1: “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”

      “What does it mean to keep your oath of office? Is an oath-keeper’s duty to obey what some judge says the law is or obey one’s moral code and interpretation of the law?”

      When you support and defend the US Constitution above all things, including orders of superiors – if any, and above the duties of the position you occupy is keeping the Oath. You must read the US Constitution and understand it as it was understood at the time as you interpret the information that you studied.

      For example: Article VI: “… The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

      This says that anyone serving within the federal or state governments MUST support the US Constitution or no longer meet the qualifications of the position or office they are occupying when Article VI says this about qualifying for office or public trust.

      This also showed how important being bound by the Oath is before they changed it so that those who are in office as Oath breakers would not get hung.

      USED TO BE – Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381: “When in the presence of two witnesses to the same overt act or in an open court of law IF YOU FAIL TO TIMELY MOVE TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND HONOR YOUR OATH OF OFFICE YOU ARE SUBJECT TO THE CAPITAL CHARGE OF FELONY TREASON, and upon conviction you will be taken by the posse to the nearest busy intersection and at high noon hung by the neck until dead…The body to remain in state till dusk as an example to anyone who takes his oath of office lightly.”

      NOW – Title 18 U.S. Code section 2381: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

      The crime is still felony Treason.

      “Is a law enforcement officer or a soldier obeying their oath when “higher authority” tells them what the law is and orders them to obey?”

      The supreme LAW of this land that ALL are bound to is the US Constitution. There is no higher authority; though many who SERVE within our governments wish they were. Soldiers and law enforcement SERVE within our governments and are BOUND by the Oath.

      Ex: When a soldier is convicted of obeying an unlawful order that is because they are made PERSONALLY responsible when they take the Oath for their own actions, and are supposed to know the US Constitution well enough to recognize an unlawful order. The same responsibility belongs to all who take the Oath.

      “When a public officials believes that an illegal/immoral order is issued, doesn’t a public official have the option of simply leaving office? It is disturbing that the Clerk wants to maintain her elected office (the marks of an entitlement mentality) rather than say “I disagree with this order and, in good conscious, can no longer hold my office which requires me to enforce this law.”

      Yes, that option is always there. But, one must NOT follow an unlawful order even if someone serving as the US President, or in the legislature, or the governor of your state gives it.

      “The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809[890]. ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the “lawful command of his superior officer,” 891.ART.91 (2), the “lawful order of a warrant officer”, 892.ART.92 (1) the “lawful general order”, 892.ART.92 (2) “lawful order”. In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.”

      Nuremberg trials in the post WW II era, was when the U.S. tried Nazi war criminals and did not allow them to use the reason or excuse that they were only “following orders” as a defense for their war crimes which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent men, women, and children. “In 1953, the Department of Defense adopted the principles of the Nuremberg Code as official policy” of the United States. (Hasting Center Report, March-April 1991)

      “It is disturbing that the Clerk wants to maintain her elected office (the marks of an entitlement mentality) rather than say “I disagree with this order and, in good conscious, can no longer hold my office which requires me to enforce this law.””

      Under the laws of her state she is upholding the law. Those that serve within the general government (federal) do not make state laws, they are mostly DELEGATED the duties dealing with foreign affairs. If there is a question one can always consult the US Constitution to see exactly what duties are delegated to be carried out by those that serve within our governments. (I’ll post a list below) Nor was the decision made by the judges lawful as it was based mostly on FOREIGN laws, and we are a sovereign nation under the US Constitution. Those judges who went for the use of foreign laws must be removed, and they must be tried for Treason as they do know exactly what they were doing in working from within to destroy the US Constitution.

      She did the correct thing, and the judge who jailed her did the wrong thing; not only did the wrong thing, but the unlawful thing according to their delegated duties and Oaths.

      John Marshall: Opinion as Chief Justice in Marbury vs. Madison, 1802: “The particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “The several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes – delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

      Justice Scalia noted in the majority opinion on Mack/Printz v USA (1997): “It is incontestable that the Constitution established a system of “dual sovereignty”…. Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained “a residuary and inviolable sovereignty”…. Residual state sovereignty was also implicit, of course, in the Constitution’s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only discrete, enumerated ones.
      Article 1, Section 8, which implication was rendered express by the Tenth Amendment’s assertion that “[t]he 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”.

      The Framers’ experience under the Articles of Confederation had persuaded them that using the States as the instruments of federal governance was both ineffectual and provocative of federal state conflict. The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the state and federal governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people.

      The great innovation of this design was that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected from incursion by the other” – “a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.”

      The Constitution thus contemplates that a State’s government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens. As Madison expressed it: “[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.” …. This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty.” (End quote)

      Hope this makes things clearer for you.

      List
      Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is widely cited as being an exhaustive list of Congressional power. But actually there are a total of about thirty depending on how they’re counted with the Congressional powers that are listed throughout the document. They are all listed here:
      1. To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
      2. To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
      3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
      4. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
      5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
      6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
      7. To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
      8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
      9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
      10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
      11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
      12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
      13. To provide and maintain a Navy;
      14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
      15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
      16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
      17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
      18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
      19. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
      20. The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
      21. In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
      22. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
      23. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
      24. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
      25. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
      26. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
      27. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
      28. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
      29. The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment…
      The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
      30. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

      1. Thanks for the lesson.

        I realize that I’m preaching to the choir, but an unfortunate characteristic of our society is that many recognize the broken-ness of our government officials, but do nothing. Tens of thousands of clerks, judges, and law enforcement and countless other elected officials and government employees who took an oath to defend the Constitution are doing and will do nothing. From where I sit, it seems like preserving their government paychecks/entitlements is more important to such officials than honoring their oath of office.

        I often compare the complacency of today with the hyper-activism of the 1960s when my generation was sent to Vietnam without being eligible to vote. I guess everyone in my generation died or has been co-opted.

        IMHO, the Constitution is ignored more than it is honored. Just count the number of people who line up at the airport (and most public buildings) every day for a warrantless search of their person without a peep (and the legions of law enforcement personnel who conduct those searches). Or, the number of people who apply to and register with their local sheriff for permission to carry a concealed weapon — a right presumably guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. In these days, the maybe the motto of “Serve and Protect” on the sides of police cars should be replaced with “Just Following Orders.”

        I wish it was not so.

        1. You are welcome.

          There are so many lies, propaganda, deception, and unlawful changing of the words of our Constitutions – state and US, that it is hard to not have ones views altered. Read the US Constitution, read the founders and framers words to counteract these actions on the part of those that are working to destroy our nation. I find it gives me comfort to know where it says we must be, and how to get there; but getting there is still difficult for us to do.

          Daniel Webster: “We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land – nor, perhaps, the sun or stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. That chart is the Constitution.”

          “Tens of thousands of clerks, judges, and law enforcement and countless other elected officials and government employees who took an oath to defend the Constitution are doing and will do nothing.”

          When people speak of revolting, or a “civil war” they are mistaken about what the problem and solution is (This is my opinion based on much study over the years).

          The problem is that we have people in office, in different areas of government that are either ignorant of the US Constitution and their duties under the branch of government – state and general – that they are located under, or they are deliberately working to destroy our nation from within with no lawful authority or even delegation of that authority to do what they are doing. Be of good cheer, because it took literally decades to re “educate” the American people, and when that was not working as they thought they had to start importing people who have no knowledge of the US Constitution. (Notice that they are now bringing in as many people daily as they can cram in before “We the People” LAWFULLY and LEGALLY stop them from coming.)

          President Andrew Johnson: “Outside of the Constitution we have no legal authority more than private citizens, and within it we have only so much as that instrument gives us. This broad principle limits all our functions and applies to all subjects.”

          The solution is to remove ALL of those people and replace them with those who will keep their Oath and do the duties assigned in a lawful manner as is required. I know there are some who are standing, and lots who have been already imprisoned and are hopefully still alive for us to save. But at this time we cannot trust any who have not been are or not being “punished” for their crime of standing for the US Constitution and their religious believes – which all people in America can do LAWFULLY.

          Abraham Lincoln: “We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”

          Justice Robert H. Jackson (Chief of Counsel for the United States, Nuremberg Trials – Nazi Germany): “It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error”.

          The other problem is that the easy ways of replacement (elections, recall, firings, etc) are not being allowed by those in higher positions that wish to destroy our nation.

          The only constitutional answer is the Militia, withe the organized Militia is the ONLY Constitutionally assigned force to:
          — Enforce the US Constitution and each state’s Constitution,
          — Enforce and keep the “Laws of the Union” (which are constitutional laws ONLY),
          — Protect the country against all enemies both domestic and foreign, and
          — “to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

          James Madison: “An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government.”

          Thomas Jefferson:“Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”

          The borders can be lawfully protected by the organized Militia (trained as congress requires the US military to be trained), as can the US Constitution and each state Constitution be enforced by them on those who represent and have delegated duties.

          That, bty, is why those in our governments started doing away with the Militia long ago, about the same time that Joseph Stalin in 1933 that: ”The United States should get rid of its militias”. And it pretty much did.

          James Madison: “… large and permanent military establishments … are forbidden by the principles of free government, and against the necessity of which the militia were meant to be a constitutional bulwark.”

          The other problem is who do we put into office, positions that will need filled as those who must be prosecuted are removed – and that does include all those “Tens of thousands of clerks, judges, and law enforcement and countless other elected officials and government employees who took an oath…” except for all unconstitutional agencies with open positions of course.

          I do not trust any lawyer, legal person who does NOT use the US Constitution and fight for it in the law arena because IT IS the Supreme LAW of this land and it MUST always be used in its defense in any placement within our government as they already have shown their way of upholding it. And I an unapologetic about that non trust as I feel they have earned it. I am not saying that there are not good people in the law enforcement community, but if they are NOT using the supreme LAW as THEY in particular are required to use it, then why will they follow it later?

    3. I’m replying to Point # 5: Is the local sheriff an oath keeper? He should have intervened with her imprisonment in jail.

    4. Regarding your point #4, she WAS elected and took her position under the rules as they applied at the time. There is no obligation to vacate her position just some judges MADE law that does not conform to the Constitution and outside their legal authority.

  77. What does the court have to do with this? If she won’t do her job, then she should be put in another department or fired.

    “A federal judge on Thursday ordered the indefinite detention ” The Judge has overstepped…Will the judge put her in Guantanamo Bay detention camp, for her defiance?

    The judge is out of Order!…We are being bamboozled.

    1. Where is the local sheriff on this? Where are the oath keepers who should be marching right now calling for the sheriff to release her from Federal Marshalls by force of law.

  78. To respond directly to Elias’ request: The US Constitution nowhere gives the federal government the right to legislate marriage. However, neither does it prohibit the states from doing so, so they have that right under the 10th amendment. That’s why the federal suit was brought under the equal protection clause. Kim Davis took an oath to uphold the state’s laws when she was elected. I would say that put her in a compromised position in the first place. If she believes the law is wrong, she should resign in protest.
    Celtic Sage: She is an elected official. She can’t be transferred or fired, only recalled or impeached. She may end up being impeached.

    1. From what I’m reading, Kentucky law has not been changed to allow same sex marriage. If she allows it, she is breaking the state law. Activist judges, at any level, cannot make laws. Only legislatures can do that. She may be following her conscience, but she is also following state law.

        1. Not an option. Elected officials promised to serve the constituents for a fixed period of time, and they can not break that promise lightly. Ms. Davis was caught between her Oath to support the Constitution and her pledge to the voters.

          1. You are forgetting her Oath to support her state Constitution. Are you aware that just because those that serve within the federal government create a law (and the judges cannot create law, only decide a case; as only those who are PUT INTO OFFICE by the people (elected) are given the authority to create laws that are in the Pursuance of the US Constitution. No one else can do so. They are allowed to have assistance, but THEY must be the ones to create the law. Remember the quote about “obamacare” that the representatives must vote for it before they can even read it? Since it was NOT created by the elected Representatives it is NOT lawfully binding on the American people, just those who serve within government.

            This was a legal opinion on the part of the supremes, made unlawfully using foreign law. The judicial branch was NOT DELEGATED the authority to make laws, only to decide it they are in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution. The ONLY branch of the government that is delegated that authority is those elected to the legislative branch.

      1. The Federal Courts/Law stepped in on Kentucky’s State Rights and overruled their State law. I am against Federal Law and for States Rights and only this administration would allow this to happen. However, they have taken over and she has to obey the Fed. Law…”Law of the Land”??!! The State Law is already broken….all of our States Rights have been ripped away!!

        1. Those that serve within the general government (the federal government is made up of the legislative, executive, judicial branches, the states, and “WE the People”) do not have the lawful authority to do so.

          What does that mean?

          That means that those who serve within your state government is committing treason against your state. Each state delegated specific put-into-writing powers to the general government, mainly dealing with foreign affairs. The states did NOT give up their sovereignty. That you must remove them and replace them with people who will KEEP the Oaths required of them in all positions, small and large within your state. (Hopefully your state is more receptive then mine, and you will not get unlawful late night, early morning visits by governmental professional law enforcement with no warrants or reasonable cause other then to shut you up.) If so, your only safety is to NOT shut up, because if you do not stop them, they will stop you and destroy our nation.

          James Madison, Federalist 39: “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” (It was established.)

          James Madison, Federalist 46: “The Federal and State Governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, instituted with different powers, and designated for different purposes… They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone; and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expence of the other. Truth no less than decency requires, that the event in every case, should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents (“We the people”).”

          James Madison, Federalist 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

          James Madison: “The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.”

          Thomas Jefferson: “I believe the states can best govern our home concerns and the federal government our foreign ones.”

          Thomas Jefferson: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.”To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

          Thomas Jefferson: “The several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes – delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party (the people) has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”

          James Madison, Federalist 14: “In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. Its jurisdiction is limited to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any”.

          Stay Safe, and God Bless!

          Molon Labe!

          If there were never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each Oath require it of those who take the Oaths?

          Chief Tecumseh: “When it comes your time to die, be not like those whose hearts are filled with the fear of death, so that when their time comes they weep and pray for a little more time to live their lives over again in a different way. Sing your death song and die like a hero going home.”

      2. Nancy, with respect – I would like to discuss this. Although the Supreme Court cannot make law, it can strike down laws it decides are unconstitutional. In 1967 it decided that state laws prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional, because they violated the 14th amendment by giving some people rights it denied to others. The recent decision decided that state laws prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional, because they violated the 14th amendment by giving some people rights it denied to others. Please help me understand why one was a good ruling and the other was not. My sincere thanks.

    2. You said it, Ken. She was elected to uphold State law. Not Federal (we have lost that status anyway–Being no longer a Federation of Soverign States). Her election occurred prior to the judge”s ruling. And, besides, as so many have posted before and since, unConstitutional law is no law at all.

  79. License
    The permission granted by competent authority to exercise a certain privilege that, without such authorization, would constitute an illegal act, a Trespass or a tort. The certificate or the document itself that confers permission to engage in otherwise proscribed conduct.

    The judge should have Kentucky arrested? This case is to set a Precedent.

  80. My own take, as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Kentucky is she is an elected civil servant in a constitution office. She can not be removed except through impeachment (or death , or resignation) until her term is up. She has THE final say on licenses issued in that county. She took and oath to support and defend the constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the United States of America. The US Supreme Court, as the final arbitrator of constitutional law has determined that equal protection under the 14th amendment applied to marriage licenses. Therefore she is not keeping her oath. If it were a deputy or an employee I could understand and see accommodation but as the signature on the license (even a deputy signs under the Clerks sole authority).

    As to the state being involved in marriage. I don’t think the states, or the federal government have any business in marriage, period. Its a religious institution and the last time I checked this was a secular republic. But, since the states and the religious people have felt the need for the state to meddle into religion then I’d have to side with the Supreme Court.

    1. That’s pretty much my take. I don’t believe that the government should be involved in marriage at all except in the general sense of enforcing contracts, but since it got into the licensing business and the general public is inclined to acquiesce, equal protection ought to apply.

      I would be inclined to support Davis if she was interested in protecting citizens’ rights instead of violating them, which I think should be our general go-to position. While the Constitution allows majority rule it has an even more important role in protecting the rights of those who are in the minority and those who are not well connected. Davis wants to impose her beliefs on others by denying them equal protection under the law, and while there are some problems with that law itself it is the spirit of tyranny that Davis represents that makes it impossible for me to support her – though I would prefer an outcome that does not include jail time – such as fining her the amount of her salary since she refuses to do her job.

    2. The 14th was never ratified as per the requirements of the US Constitution, regardless of the life the liberal courts have breathed into it.

  81. Have any of you actually read the 10 point Oathkeepers Declaration? I specifically refer to item 10 – We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances. …Therefore, we will not obey or support any orders to suppress or violate the right of the people to speak, associate, worship, assemble, communicate, or petition government for the redress of grievances.

    In reading the above comments, it appears that very few of you practice what you preach.

    You are basically supporting a government representative in violating most of the First Amendment.

    If she was refusing to issue pistol permits, you would all be ripping her a new one. We can’t pick and choose the rights we wish to support. Sometimes you just have to swallow the bitter pill and support the difficult right over the easy wrong.

    If her conscience can’t support issuing same sex marriage licences, she can always resign.

    1. Actually I was wondering about this….three of the five protections are listed in the the 1st Amdt on the tenth point “10” …NOTHING is said regarding the free exercise thereof(religion) …WHY IS THAT?

    2. People use the whole issue Pistol permit argument, If that were an actual case (it is not and highly unlikely) then the rights of that individual according to his religion would need to be protected…AND THEN WE COULD HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHY DO WE EVEN NEED A PISTOL PERMIT IN THE FIRST PLACE! Only permit I need is the 2nd Amdt

    3. This is about “issuing marriage licenses” to someone who is NOT recognized by Kentucky law to be allowed to be married within that state. ]

      You are misunderstanding the problem. Her state does NOT recognize gay marriage. She does not have to follow a supreme court decision because it is NOT LAW (and based on foreign law so not even a lawful decision.) Those that serve within the general government has little authority over the states, and that which they gave themselves is NOT lawful here within the USA, under our Constitution of the United States of America. The authority that those that serve within the general government do have BY DELEGATION FROM the states and the people is PUT INTO WRITING within the US Constitution.

      Those that serve within the judicial branch were NOT delegated the duties to create law, only to decide cases while they remain KEEPING their Oath to support and defend the US Constitution, and doing their duties as assigned by the US Constitution. The fact is that this case was decided by USING FOREIGN LAW which is NOT lawful here within the USA.

      But even that matters not, because those that SERVE WITHIN THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT do not have the authority to tell the states what to do or not to do EXCEPT in specific put-into-writing-circumstances, and those are very LIMITED.

      Each state is a sovereign government that was created the US Constitution which created, defines, and assigns the duties of those that serve within the General government.

      James Madison, Father of the US Constitution in Federalist 14: “In the first place, it is to be remembered, that the general (federal) government is NOT to be charged with the whole power of making and administering laws. ITS JURISDICTION IS LIMITED to certain enumerated objects, which concern all the members of the republic, but which are not to be attained by the separate provisions of any”.

      James Madison, Federalist 39: “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.” (It was established. WE call it the US Constitution.)

      James Madison, Federalist 45: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

      Thomas Jefferson: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.”To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

      Abraham Lincoln: “We, the people, are the rightful masters of both congress and the courts – not to overthrow the constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”

  82. Well, once again, I see no rage…again and again Christians are persecuted. Now she is in jail, while the judge dines in the comfort of his estate. Is there not one who will stand up for this person? The jailers should have refused to comply…the sheriff should have interceded…Time for a crusade.

    MOLON LABE

    1. Had I the numbers in KY, we would have escorted her home that evening. “My people perish for lack of knowledge”

  83. How come the local Sheriff did Not protect Kim Davis? That would be his duty.

    “Same sex marriage is now “the law of the land”? NOT SO!

    1. The supremacy clause of the federal Constitution (Art. VI, clause 2) says that only the Constitution, laws made pursuant to the Constitution, and Treaties made under the authority of the United States are the supreme law of the land. Supreme Court “opinions” are NOT part of that supreme law.

    2. Supreme court opinions are not “law” — they are OPINIONS on the cases [rightly or wrongly] before the Court. The ONLY ONLY ONLY federal law in this land is: The Constitution, Laws made by Congress which are permitted by the Constitution, and Treaties made by the President and the Senate which are permitted by the Constitution.

    Supreme Court opinions are NOT LAW.

    3. But the statists have managed to convince most Americans that the Supreme Court is THE highest law making body in the entire Country. If people would only read our federal Constitution and use their heads, they would have seen through this absurd claim 100 years ago.”

    — Publius Huldah

    http://bit.ly/1imFerV

  84. “Same sex marriage is now “the law of the land”? NOT SO!

    1. The supremacy clause of the federal Constitution (Art. VI, clause 2) says that only the Constitution, laws made pursuant to the Constitution, and Treaties made under the authority of the United States are the supreme law of the land. Supreme Court “opinions” are NOT part of that supreme law.

    2. Supreme court opinions are not “law” — they are OPINIONS on the cases [rightly or wrongly] before the Court. The ONLY ONLY ONLY federal law in this land is: The Constitution, Laws made by Congress which are permitted by the Constitution, and Treaties made by the President and the Senate which are permitted by the Constitution.

    Supreme Court opinions are NOT LAW.

    3. But the statists have managed to convince most Americans that the Supreme Court is THE highest law making body in the entire Country. If people would only read our federal Constitution and use their heads, they would have seen through this absurd claim 100 years ago.”

    — Publius Huldah

    Sheriff Jack Carter swore an Oath!

  85. May God’s comforts and mercies be with and strengthen our brave sister Kim Davis. The injustice which is happening to KIm is going to happen to many of us who believe in Jesus and stand on God’s word. There is also now a judge in Oregon who refuses to perform same sex marriages.

    As time moves forward, the real Christians will be seen for who they are and so will the fake Christians be seen for who they are. There is no way that gay marriage can be justified by anyone who calls themselves a Christian especially when God has made it clear that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

    Justice has fallen in America, and what we are seeing with the gay marriage ruling is an example of the law of satan being established in America. We are living in the beginnings of the time period Jesus spoke of here:

    9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.

    10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

    11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

    12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.

    13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

    14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. (Matthew 24:9-14)

  86. The laws of nature and natures God have already defined marriage (Adam and Eve). So the Creator has the authority to define his creation. “We the People” are the creator’s of the federal government and we through the enumerated powers, 18 assigned duties,and only these assigned duties give authority to the federal government. The three branches of our creation are not authorized to do anything outside those duties that we assigned to them. They can not use executive orders, pass laws. or make opinions. regarding any thing other than those assigned duties. So, since marriage is already defined,by our creator. the SCOUS does not have the authority or power to define marriage., thus no lower court federal judges have the power to tell this lady she must adhere to a non existent law/orders/opinion We must know the Declaration and Constitution along with writings from our founders, Federalist Papers, Jay’s commentaries on the Constitution to name a few. Then we can use what Jefferson called Nullification, when unjust and illegal laws are passed you and the States (see the 10th amendment)have the right to ignore or nullify those laws. Jefferson even said that it is our duty to do so. because that allows them to continue to expand unlawful ideas. Federal Reserve. EPA,HHS,Dept of Education. Homeland Security to name a few. We must put them back into the box that we created for them and keep them there.

  87. I am amazed and shocked. We Swore an Oath to protect the Constitution against ALL Enemies! The Constitution in 33 Sovereign States was and IS that marriage IS between a man and a woman for years and nothing was said before until now. So the Law in most states state that sodomy is a crime. The Common Law is that sodomy is a crime against Nature and Nature’s God.

    So there is NO Law that states that Marriage of sodomites is allowed. There is Nowhere in the US Constitution that says anything about marriage. The Federal does not issue marriage licenses. The two lawyers or judges or justices should have recused themselves for they had already married sodomites. . Also the other 4 stated this was unConstitutional. Also years ago this court also said that Black People was not even human. They have also said that babies are not human.

    The Civil War was about the Federal Government overstepping their bounds and telling states what they could and could not do. Same as today.

    SO the People have not make this a law but to the contrary.

    So if we made an Oath to the Constitution why are we not defending it? We should have risen up and stopped this false imprisonment. Everyone is waiting on someone else to do this and nothing is done while our Country is destroyed.

    I cannot believe the comments above that speak with the lawlessness of the supreme Court and this Federal judge. Do you NOT know the law and the Constitution? Are YOU this deceived? If you are we are divided and our Country is gone.

    No ONE has the Right to sodomy. Rights ARE unalienable, so no one but the Almighty God YAH gives Rights. SO why is it that it is now that all of this is coming up? It was Wrong before and it IS Wrong NOW!

    Will YOU not stand? Will YOU NOT join me? The Constitution, the Law, the People must be protected. What are you waiting for? We worked for the Federal Government so we must step up against this Tyranny. Our government are destroying us, making laws and rules against us, bullets and vehicles against us with OUR money, and we do NOTHING? Are you this asleep? We Swore to the Constitution NOT to judges.

    I AM ashamed of our Veterans. There is SO much that I could list here but if you cannot see this and do NOT know the Constitution nor the Law nor the Rights, than taking up this space will NOT be good enough, but i finish with this.

    We in the Marines said “God, Country, Corps” and God the Almighty YAH has said in His Holy Word or Scriptures that sodomy is a sin and an abomination and is unnatural and destroys nations and He will destroy that nation. So we go against what He has said of which is NOT good for He will destroy us for this reason. Seek the Truth NOT opinions and then STAND!

    I thought Oath Keepers would join together and go around the nation and defend the Constitution and where those our servants who took the Oath would be removed for Perjury and Treason instead of allowing them to make slaves out of us doing lawlessness and believing the lie that they would be removed by election.

    This IS YOUR WAKE UP CALL

  88. I am 73 years old. In my youth I was gay and paid very little attention to politics. Since growing up I have become very interested. I am a strong believer in adhering to the Constitution. The Constitution does not say anything about gay marriage, pedophilia, bestiality, etc. By passing this law, and violating the Constitution, this administration has opened up the possibility of the aforementioned also being made legal. And what about Polygamy? This administration is destroying our constitution and our rights. If America doesn’t wake up soon our country will be totally gone. No one should be forced to go against their beliefs or their God given unalienable rights. Besides the fact that Kim was following Ky. law.

  89. I am a believer, I am also an American who swore an Oath to the Constitution willingly. Someone’s beliefs are not our Laws. What if that belief system say discrimanate against others, kill a certain group or its okay to cheat they in business. Wait, some religions do say this, so your beliefs will never be My Laws.

    I know that Jesus Christ died for my sins and rose on the 3rd day, However. Religious beliefs cannot be the law of this land as the founding Fathers separated Church and State for this very reason. Sharia law one day could become the law of the land if and when Muslims become the Majority, what then? Religious Liberty means we each have the right to practice our faith and that is the law of the land. She is an elected official who swore an oath to uphold the law not force Her beliefs on the residents of that County. Religion has been used in America to justify Slavery and outlaw Interracial Marriages to name a few time Religion was used to justify a crime. The term Religious Liberty is recently coined to further divide us, focus on the Constitution and the Law. This is not about Religious Liberty, it is about the Constitution of the United States of America. To defend this woman is to shred the Constitution of the United States of America and I swore an oath to defend the Constitution “…against all Enemies; Foreign and Domestic.”” So help me God.

  90. Perhaps something of value to Christians might be gained from the tragedy faced by courageous Kentucky clerk Kim Davis being imprisoned for refusing to issue a marriage license to a gay couple. Maybe make lemonade when served lemons? What if Christians were taught by their pastors the REAL meaning of a “marriage license”? Do Christians REALLY have to ask the state for permission to marry in the first place? What is the legal definition of “license”? Here is some of what is in the legal definition of “license” in Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, “License: A special privilege, not a right common to all. The privilege conferred by a public body on a person for the doing of something he would not have the right to do.” Cutting right to the chase, marriage between a man and a woman is an absolute right that one should not have to seek permission from a “public body” to exercise. Now you know that all natural rights are bestowed upon us by our Creator. Certainly Scripture shows plain and clear that our Creator did not bestow the right to marry to same-sex folks. For that man’s government must step in and issue a “license” for such privilege. Now maybe Kim Davis should play her “get out of jail free card” and tell that federal district court judge, David Bunning, that she has thought it over and would issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples because that would be a privilege “granted by the state” – but at the same time she would advise opposite sex couples that they do not need to buy a marriage license to accomplish what the Creator of All Things has set forth as a natural right and a commandment to “fill the earth”. Why should Christian couples have to spend the outrageous fee for a license to enrich state and local governments when they do not have to? Do not most, if not all, of the States united recognize “common law marriages” in their codes of “man laws”? Why not turn this thing upside down on those who choose to disobey our Creator on what is right and wrong? Real Christian pastors should absolutely refuse to sign their names to marriage licenses, period.

  91. This is all amazingly overboard. The people of the United States are overwhelmingly in support of gay marriage. Several state propositions were challenged and tried in the courts and had standing because their civil rights issues had merit. The Supreme Court of the United States of America finally heard the appeals and found that the rights of this minority could not be infringed upon by civil institutions, economically or otherwise. You should be happy that our government has the ability to reach a conclusion that allows for increased civil rights for minorities and focus on issues that protect society. Like in Ferguson, MO. This lady is in jail for failing to operate within the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, so if there is an issue with that, good luck! Most Americans agree she should be jailed.

  92. So, OK will make a stand at a gold mine on public property, but are spineless to organize on behalf of a citizen, a woman with more spine than all OK members combined. Ok will travel all they way to a Nevada ranch to stand up to the BLM, but not send one soul to protest or block a criminal judge in Kentucky. Once again, we see plenty bravado statements regarding constitutional opining. OK will stand guard for military recruitment centers, meanwhile on her own island Ms Davis stands alone. Simply pathetic. Not one OK in Kentucky with will?

    MOLON ABE

    1. Highflight, while I share your disquietude that Oath Keepers has yet to take a public stance for Kim Davis the way it has taken for ranchers, miners, and Ferguson business owners, your “spineless” accusation is way over the line. “Spineless” people don’t risk their lives as the aforementioned people have.

      So look for the right foxhole before throwing your grenades. There must be a reason for Oath Keepers’ not jumping into this one, with Constitutional issues so obvious you can drive a Mack truck through them – a woman in jail not for breaking any law, but for exercising her 1st A right of free exercise of religion, when a rebellious SCOTUS usurped State power by redefining marriage (cf. Article 1, Section 8 and the 10th A).

      And, even if the Feds DID have such power, the Constitution vests ALL ( Federal) legislative powers, NOT in the courts, but in the Congress. Article 1, Section 1.

      If we’re not beating up on our State legislatures, governors, and attorneys generals to push back on this SCOTUS Constitutional nightmare, I say we need a darn good reason.

    2. And who in the name of Hell are you? Are you running Oath Keepers? Are you calling the shots? Are you the self-appointed commander? Really, Oh Thou of the Vast Attitude, who the Hell do you think you are?

      Better yet, what are YOU doing? Got any plans to do anything yourself? Do say.

      Now that I’ve returned tit for tat (with apologies to all intelligent readers here), allow me to tell you some facts of life.

      1: You do not give the orders here.
      2. You spoke without knowing what you’re even talking about.
      3. Oath Keepers are on the way to Kentucky now.
      4. I recommend you learn how to check your Ego, your Tongue, and the resultant mess, such as this public embarrassment, that either of those instruments can create for you. It’s called “self-control”. It’s called dignity. It’s called personal responsibility for the content of your consciousness. It’s called respect for your fellow man. It’s also called wisdom.

      Go play somewhere else. Unbridled egos are not needed here.
      Salute!
      Elias Alias, editor.

      1. I read your comment that oath keepers are on the way to Kentucky-why isn’t this being announced through your website so that the masses of us who support you can make arrangements to show up by the thousands? It seems to me that a public announcement would make a world of difference-otherwise only a handful will show up.

        1. To the best of my knowledge the plans are still in process of being completed. When Stewart Rhodes gives me the plans, I will publish them. Until then, I would ask you to exercise a bit of patience.
          Thank you.
          Salute!
          Elias Alias, editor

      2. Considering the high volume of comments, it’s obvious the situation with Kim Davis is weighing heavy on all of us as patriots. Deflecting, making personal attacks, discrediting and attacking specific individuals patriotism or patriotic deeds is not the subject, but rather what OK is doing and doing so consistently. Thank you for showing some blood pressure, fire in your belly, spirit, and rage; and making it known there are plans to address the situation with Kim Davis.

        MOLON LABE

      3. Yes, we did have people at the detention center. Yes, we were there to gather information. Yes, we have been in direct contact with Stewart Rhodes. Yes, there is a plan being formed to respond if someone tries to arrest her, again. It is up to Mrs. Davis as to the depth of the protection we provide her. We do not want to just barge into her life and her business, unannounced.

    3. It’s simple. The ownership of cattle in Nevada is more important than the freedom of a Christian Patriot in Kentucky-probably because she is an elected Democrat.

      1. Here is what else is simple. Mr. Ed, your snide comments here are wearing my patience thin. If you persist, you’ll find that I’ll simply refuse to post your comments. You will show respect for this organization’s web presence, or you will not be posting here. I’m looking for your cooperation, and I’ll not be asking for it again.
        Thank you,
        Salute!
        Elias Alias, editor

        1. Elias Alias. how did I disrespect this organization’s web presence? I wasn’t posting about “oath keepers” and never mentioned oath keepers in my post. While I didn’t come out and say it I actually had a completely different group in mind-mainly the talk show hosts who came out hoopin and hollerin in support of Bundy’s issues and have poo-pooed Kim Davis. I will try to be clearer in my future postings if I do post again. Btw what “snide” comments of mine are wearing your patience thin?

    4. highflight. I commend you for being impassioned and using an internet blog to try to persuade people to believe as strongly in your cause. The only issue I have is that you made the statement about more spine than all oathkeepers combined. I think you ought to have held back on the insult. But again-a great post at trying to show how much you care and trying to get others to see your point of view.

      1. It’s simple. I am not the one being persecuted for standing for my moral ethics and conviction, nor am I the one thrown in jail by a rogue political hack judge, who is an example of grandiosity, an exaggerated sense of self-importance, full of self-significance, and who is totally absorbed in his own fantasies of success, and power; dictating unquestioning compliance and for others to acquiesce to his demands. Pretty haughty and arrogant, I am not convinced we should be envious of such…

        MOLON LABE

    5. No one was jailed for practicing her beliefs. Someone was jailed for using the Government to force others to practice her religion.

      1. Nonsense. Read Kentucky state law. Then recall that Ms Davis went to jail for upholding that law. Her religious belief is incidental and coincides with the doctrine she adheres to.

      2. YES!
        Separation of church and state. If, in her state appointment, she is unable to define her role within the parameter of existing law and live by her sworn duty as a servant of the people, for the people, while respecting co-present differences or diversity amongst the law respecting citizenry then she is incapable of performing her duty. Not all citizens of this nation and community she serves have the same relationship with deity that this public servant has, and thank goodness, or, we would be soley a church-state dependant on similar religious views and rules for governance. Instead, ours is a nation of tangible-physical-beings who must consider human differences and give allowance to their being different and allow it with respect and honor.
        Forcing one’s personal or religious belief on others, with the goal being to promote and expect all people to believe, as this woman seems to expect of people in her jurisdiction, that “…God’s Law” and not the law of her community, her State or her Nation, should be the law. In such a world God alone or through God’s appointed representatives, laws for this nation should be made.
        Kentucky County Clerk, Kim Davis is working for the wrong community, the wrong county, the wrong state and, finally, the wrong country and perhaps living in the wrong century. She would fit in really well as the County Clerk in the 12th Century while serving in the employment of the Catholic Church where she could be representing her God as He proclaimed the Holy Inquisition and vetted out the “Unworthies” and play a role in hastening their exit from this world so they can receive their just rewards in the next world, sooner than later.

  93. Having scanned all comments made so far, it becomes apparent that my almost total agreement with Cal has occurred. Although Cal is wordy and does not speak in talking points, the knowledge and dedication are evident.
    To those who think the County Clerk should resign if she cannot support this newly judicially made law, there is no obligation to abide an unConstitutional law. To those who believe that failing to abide abridges someone else’s rights, in no way does she limit their ability to freely associate.
    Her hire date preceeded the supposed law, so her assumed employment contract did not contain any of the new “law’s” provisions.
    Nowhere does the Constitution give authority to Justices, on the Supreme, nor any other court, leave to assign definitions to words and phrases. Marriage has been defined at the State level in the majority of States as between one woman and one man. Redefining at any level presents us with a can of worms that, even when heated, will be exceedingly unsavory. We don’t even want to open that can. In order to uphold an oath, you must first learn what is and is not within its purview. The purview of the Constitution is severly limited.
    Now, in order to be a modern judge or political functionary, maybe a subset oath should be to lie, cheat, steel, spend other peoples’ money and break the official oath every day while totally ignoring you solem duties, delegating your responsibilities to some unelected unaccountable bureaucratic functionary within the Executive departments. That way, no work needs be accomplished while the perks and salaries continue–and no Obamacare to worry about for you and yours.

  94. As far as I know marriage laws only exist at the state level. The federal level incident that created same sex marriage had nothing to do with a law. It was absolutely and only an opinion issued by the subpreme court. But alas, the sheep went baa baa baa all the way to the pacifist farm

  95. Roy G. Callahan, USN, Ret.

    1529 NW 143rd Street
    Gainesville, Florida 32606
    Tel: (352) 332-9144
    Fax: (352) 332-9144
    call6603@bellsouth.net

    Monday, September 7, 2015
    Representative Ted Yoho
    511 Cannon House Office Building
    Washington, D.C. 20515

    Dear Representative Yoho:

    Article 1, Section 1, says, “All legislative powers shall be vested in the Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives” yet Congress permits a black robed Marxist parroting the Su-preme Court’s war on religion to
    Deign it his responsibility,
    To obey an illegal pronouncement by the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges
    That Homosexual Marriage is a right granted by the 14th Amendment and
    Requires him to incarcerate Kim Davis, a County Court Clerk elected and employed by the sovereign state of Kentucky for her refusal to issue marriage licenses to anyone so as not to discriminate because her religious be-liefs forbids issuing licenses to same sex couples.

    This is not the first time Congress has remained silent when the Court imposed its agenda by abusing its authority using the 14th Amendment. Congress remained silent in Roe v. Wade (1973) abortion and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) same-sex marriage. The same holds true regarding birthright citizenship. Senator Ted Cruz, Mark Levin, Donald Trump, Sena-tor Sessions, and Governor Scott Walker are correct. There is no record that congress has passed laws allowing birthright citizenship or homosexual marriage. Both decisions are invalid. Contextually, it is worth noting Senator Jacob Howard (R-MI) the author of the 14th Amendment statement was succinct regarding citizenship. His intent to was to make recently freed (emancipated) blacks whole only.

    Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the [United States]. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers, accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

    Therefore, it is obvious that RINO’s like Jeb Bush who deem violating our immigration laws “an act of love” and courts that prefer to do end runs around the Constitution rather than enforce it must be resisted.

    The remedy to this problem is simple. Article III, Section 1 states “The Judges, both of the Supreme and Inferior Courts shall hold their offices during good behavior.” U.S. District Judge David Bunning illegally used the power of government to incarcerate Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis for contempt of an illegal opinion of five Marxist judges hell bent on destroying the fabric of American culture. Ms. Davis’ only sin was citing her beliefs as an Apostolic Christian and her inability to discern where the Constitution requires her to issue licenses to any couple, gay, or straight. Therefore, it is time to impeach Judge Bunning.

    I gave you impeachment documents drafted by the North American Law Center dealing with Obama’s illegal presidency the last time we met. You chose not to act on them citing current members of Congress told you “previous administration and Congresses have not acted on official lawlessness; this Congress is not going to be the first.” You also authored legis-lation defining impeachment. The rule of law garbage one hears from news pundits and politicians is a joke and everyone knows it. Judge David Bunning committed an impeachable offense by incarcerating Mrs. Davis without cause. Congress has the power to hold him accountable and must do so. It is time to reverse this trend.

    The Davis case is an injustice that shocks the conscience of “freedom loving Americans.” The courts are corrupt and the ballot box is not working leaving freedom loving Americans one other alternative left to maintain their freedom: – the car-tridge box so many corrupt politicians try to diminish and denigrate by ignoring the “shall not be infringed” in the second amendment. The founders gave us the Second Amendment for a reason – Judge Bunning’s action is one of those reasons that will lead to further abuse if allowed to stand. I do not believe you want to go there.

    The people of the Third Congressional district sent you to Congress to honor your oath to the Constitution, uphold the rule of law, and work for them. Authoring legislation/articles to impeach Obama and Judge Bunning upholds the rule of law.

    I have listened to you and other members of Congress thank current and former members of the armed services for their service. Like you, we took the same oath the difference being, service members signed a blank cheque that included death and dismemberment. I have served with and seen many of my fellow service members give their all for this country and its Constitution. I refuse, in conscience, to allow judges like Bunning to dishonor their sacrifice and let acts like this go unan-swered. The Davis case points to the fact that Congress must give meaning to “Thank you for your service.” This is what I expect you to do.

    Looking forward to your reply, I remain,

    Yours in the Bill of Rights,

    Roy G. Callahan
    Cuban Missile Crisis/Vietnam Veteran (Devil Dog)
    Retired Investigator, Public Defender’s Office, 8th Judicial Circuit
    Lifelong oath keeper.

    Cc: Judge David Bunning
    United States District Judge
    US District Court
    35 West 5th Street
    Covington, KY 41011

    Florida Legislature; Florida Congressional Delegation; Rep. Candidates Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee, Governor of Kentucky Steve Beshear; Senator Cruz and Paul et al

    1. Roy,
      Semper Fi!
      Thank you for posting this. I have saved it to file here on my computer, as an example of excellent composition.
      I want to thank you for your service, both then and now.
      Salute!
      Elias Alias, editor

    2. WOW ROY what an awesome writing!! Leaving no door open for escape! Yoho has to remain wide eyed and mouth wide open choking on your superb statements. I salute you Brother!

  96. With respect, and acknowledging my views are in the minority – please help me understand how we can grant special legal status to couples who marry – and then allow that status for straight couples, deny that status to gay couples, and still maintain that we are offering all citizens equal protection under the law? Like most here my personal opinions on the matter are heartfelt, deeply rooted matters of faith – and completely irrelevant to questions of law. We are not a theocracy but a republic – so please help me, here?

    1. T-10 Charlie,
      With respect, can you explain to me what business the Federal government has in controlling marriage? Where in the Constitution are they given this authority? Authority not granted to the Federal government, by its charter, which is the Constitution, clearly states that powers NOT granted to it are reserved to the States, or to the people.

      Shorty Dawkins
      Associate Editor

      1. Mrs Davis is not Rosa Parks, she’s the bus driver. The equal protection clause of the 14th ammendment says that all citizens must be treated with equality. If one group has rights, then all groups have those rights. In this case it is the right to marry. The supreme court isn’t re-defining marriage, they are protecting civil rights under the constitution. As “Oath Keepers” you should be fighting for people’s right to marry.

      2. Shorty, I am 100% in agreement with your point as I understand it, that government has NO BUSINESS in marriage. My point was more specific – that the government defining what marriage is and who may participate it, is beyond its enumerated powers. I deeply respect everyone’s sincerely help beliefs – but I honestly feel that the many people here who have expressed their beliefs that it is OK for Government to define, regulate, and license marriage – a religious institution – are in the wrong. To Liberty!

          1. Not only is it beyond the powers of the Federal government to define marriage, it is against the Constitution for KY’s constitution to ban gay marriage. The Feds didn’t define marriage, they struck down the state laws which discriminated against gay marriage. Federal courts rule on state law according to the Supremacy clause. In fact, it used to be common for states to ban whites from marrying blacks until SCOTUS struck that down in 1967.

    2. T-10 Charlie,
      I agree with you. The state is taking away rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Obergefell v.Hodges backs this up. Mrs. Davis, as an elected official, was in contempt of this ruling and sanctioned accordingly.
      Furthermore, when the government stops granting special privileges to married couples. I will support marriage being a non-secular event and agree the government should not intervene.

    3. If you can’t look between your legs and see what sex you are, and don’t understand the definition of marriage, you will never understand any explanation given by anybody here.

      You appear to be a smart person, you do not need to play this game.

      What exactly is a “Chariot of Fire”?

      What would an ancient Egyption call an airplane?

      In other words, because homosexuals don’t know what to call the legal bond between two consenting adults of the same sex, that does not give authority to changing the definition of marriage does it?

      So all you homosexuals and homosexual sympathizers figure out the new term, adopt it, lobby it, and quit disrespecting the good people of this country who can recognize a penis from a vagina. The same people who really don’t have a problem with your sexual preferences but hold dear the relationship of a man and woman, the most supreme human relationship on the planet. Without which you would not be here.

  97. When slavery was the law of the land. It was God fearing abolitionists that stood up to the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision that African Americans can never be citizens because they were property. Their definition of humanity was at odds with Gods law.

    It is once again time for God fearing Christians to stand for God’s law and resist this courts attempt to render man’s definition of marriage in place.of God’s.

  98. T-10 Charlie,
    Marriage has always been a religious institution with it’s accompanied ritual. It was never intended to be a secular event. We may be at a point where those of us who revere God’s blessings for a fruitful bond of man and woman to keep the ritual in God’s house and not in the public square.

    Family law and courts can be deal with custody of children, property division, inheritance, etc that may occur in course of secular civil contracts. This would go a long way to heal the secular/religious divide. Just a thought.

    1. I absolutely agree – marriage has been a religious institution throughout history, and IMO it should remain that way. When the government chose to intrude upon it and decide to grant special rights and priveleges to those it deemed married while denying those rights to those it did not, it transgressed. Get the damned government out of our marriages, out of our bedrooms, and out of our lives as much as possible!

    2. With respect, marriage predates Christianity, and helped bind clans together. It was a secular event from its conception. The original Christian church didn’t require any ceremony, and took a man’s word that he was married up until the 1500s. In 1563 the church required a religious ceremony. In America, the first licenses were required to prevent whites from marrying minorities until those laws were overturned by SCOTUS in 1967. Why should states require a license today? Recently, SCOTUS recognized that our wise Founders wrote that ALL persons were granted Equal Protection. So if marriage is licensed to anyone, it must be licensed to everyone. The SCOTUS ruling, by the Supremacy clause, struck down Kentucky’s constitutional prohibition against gays marrying. This is the Constitution that all states ratified. Today, it seems that all states should get out of licensing marriages, and simply record them as a way to regulate benefits and adjudicate legal obligations.

  99. We must all decide what side we are going to be on. In the end we will be on one side or the other. If you choose to be on the side of our Lord Jesus Christ we must be prepared for what is coming. Outlawing the Bible or Christian beliefs I believe is coming soon. It will be under some type of hate law propaganda or another illegal executive order. How ever it will be accomplished it is going to happen. Kim did the right thing! We all know what marriage truly is. This is just the beginning! Like it or not we will all be forced into the one side or another scenario. Remember the government can kill you,but only you can send yourself to an eternity without God…..

  100. Everyone has freedom of choice, even the lady refusing to do her job. We have rights whether, they are accepted by the government or not. Freewill came before any of ,man’s laws and is superior to all.

  101. Hello all my fellow patriots, I am retired police officer/chaplain. I took an oath to protect all citizens regardless of their race, sexual orientation and religious beliefs and I would protect all for I do not judge a man or woman.
    We all got to remember that we all took an oath to protect the American people and the Constitution. A lot of wars are based on religion. So let’s be careful on how we use religions in our conversations because your beliefs could be different from somebody else’s beliefs and this starts fighting among-st all of us about this issue of Gay marriages. remember before quoting something in the Bible and judging others first look in the mirror at yourself and see what kind of sins you are committing by the word of God. Equality for all.. I know a lot of people will attack me and say things about this but that’s okay they have the freedom of opinion. I do not get defended by words. That’s all they are just words. Also remember those that fought for our freedom and lay their lives down for others.. May you all have a wonderful evening and great upcoming weekend..

  102. I care not what people do in their private lives, it is their constitutional right to privacy as such. I also care little in way of marriage licenses from the state as they are NOT ordained by god in ANY WAY, just a legal document they get to charge you for.

    with this statement aside, in what way is what the lawyer are presenting LEGAL? it is under the US codes very definition TERRORISM.

    besides, the SCOTUS isn’t legally suppose to be the final arbiters of constitutionality of a law ANYWAY, according to our fore fathers.

    why is it people of today are so inactive against this tyranny our forebears would have been publically hanging people for?

  103. In this instance she was hired to do a job and is paid to do it. When the job becomes unpalatable and you refuse to do the work required then you need to quit and find one that is more agreeable. If you wish to go Bilblical then all I can say is that if you live with the Canaanites and work for them then you are wrong. The Bible guarantees free choice whether your choices (same sex marriages) are an abomination to God or not. Kim Davis being a Christian cannot participate in this insanity without being in sin herself but needs to quit the job, not refuse to do it.

    1. The Bible is full of stories where people refused to comply with orders of rulers that were against God. Daniel is a great example. The Lord has commissioned us to be lights in the world and stand against evil. This country of ours did not come into being because Christian men and women refused to participate and quit. This behavior is what had caused all our problems.
      Respectfully,
      Noah Hathorne

  104. I hold a concealed weapon permit in the state of New Hampshire. What if the town clerk were a lifelong member of the Society of Friends and invoked their centuries old deeply held religious belief in peace to deny me and everyone else a permit on the basis of their 1st Amendment religious freedom rights? Who would the Oath Keepers stand with?

  105. Like the editor above stated, I’m not sure what role the state should have in sanctioning any marriages (my guess is to track who is legally entitled to benefits, etc). Anyone who works for a government should realize that they serve ALL taxpayers for that constituency. I’m feel pretty confident that Ms David didn’t refuse the 10% of her pay that would have come from gay rate payers (at least according to most population estimates). If you can’t perform your government job for a government that should represent EVERY SINGLE ONE of its citizens because of your religious views, it’s time for you to find new work. Would you allow devout a Muslim working for the government refuse service to a female for unaccompanied by a male? I’m sure you can think of many situations that could arise.

  106. In this instance, it is Mrs. Davis who is the arm of an illegal system denying people their rights on behalf of the government. As such, I see no need for OK protection. She IS the boot on the face of liberty.

  107. Kim Davis is not following the United States Constitution and so I don’t understand why OathKeepers would offer her protection when the mission is to protect Our Constitution.
    She is refusing to resect our Constitution as interpreted by a very conservative SCOTUS.
    She is denying people straight and non-straight the right to marry the one they love.
    Big mistake to protect her I believe. It’s a black eye for the OathKeepers just as it would have
    been wrong to protect George Wallace stand in the school house door.

    1. with respect, even the Bible says that “Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, because there is no authority that has not been established by God, so in Kim Davis’ case, I find her picking and choosing which passage of Scripture to obey. People will say, but only if the government is right and just. Well, Paul wrote that to the Christian church at Rome, I don’t suppose Rome was a righteous authority, yet Paul tells us to obey. and Jesus tells us to render unto Caesar.

      To say that marriage is a religious institution means all those married by a justice of the peace are not married? Do we really want to alienate a very large number of people? Churches need to call it what is , matrimony. If Kentucky had made accommodation for religious objections at the start of all this it would be one thing, but they didn’t.

      And I think too, we must respect the right of religious liberty of some Christian churches who believe same-gender marriage is fine, and actually perform them- shall we then infringe no their right to practice their religion? By no means, either all religious beliefs arte respected under the 1st Amendment, or none are. So whatever you or I might think of a particular sect, denomination etc., as an Oath keeper, doesn’t that mean we need to stand up for those people’s rights as well? Otherwise we are not upholding the Constitution, we are selectively applying it to protect only those we deem to be in the “right” church. Respectfully, Beowulf.

Comments are closed.