Kentucky clerk appeals order putting her in jail

[Publicus]

Davis at her news conference today went deeper into her defiance of SCOTUS by saying she herself will not issue licenses to same-sex couples but she will not try to stop the deputy clerks from issuing them. The US federal judge had removed the deputy clerks from the contempt order but only after each deputy appeared before him in court and said they would issue the licenses.

Davis wants her name and title off the certificates, which would require action by the state legislature and the governor since the certificates are authorized by the state and are standardized throughout the state, which is of course the common practice in the states.

Davis said however she will add new language of her own to each certificate which is perhaps what God told her to do while she was idling and praying in jail consulting with Him Himself. From now forward each certificate will also say it is issued only by order of the federal court in Kentucky. Sounds like her evangelical Christian lawyers went directly to the Top too.

It is a welcome opportunity to again cite the constitutionally definitive ruling by SCOTUS stating that civil law under the Constitution is superior to canon law or religious belief always and every time, otherwise the nation invites anarchy.

Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the Court:

REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES (1878)

Can a man excuse his [illegal] practices…because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances….”

http://billofrightsi...ed-states-1878/

(This is a matter of the 14th Amendment equal protection of the laws. Actions against SCOTUS and the constitution for any reason are OTT which is why the federal judge placed the Kentucky clerk in contempt of the court, i.e., the Constitution.

(God and government are two different beasts so any officer of the law who tries to impose God on government violates the Constitution and the laws thereby misusing and abusing their authority and remit. Even the emperor and dictator Caesar made no such claims as this clerk makes.)

Edited September 14, 2015 by Publicus

[thaibeachlovers]

Davis at her news conference today went deeper into her defiance of SCOTUS by saying she herself will not issue licenses to same-sex couples but she will not try to stop the deputy clerks from issuing them. The US federal judge had removed the deputy clerks from the contempt order but only after each deputy appeared before him in court and said they would issue the licenses.

Davis wants her name and title off the certificates, which would require action by the state legislature and the governor since the certificates are authorized by the state and are standardized throughout the state, which is of course the common practice in the states.

Davis said however she will add new language of her own to each certificate which is perhaps what God told her to do while she was idling and praying in jail consulting with Him Himself. From now forward each certificate will also say it is issued only by order of the federal court in Kentucky. Sounds like her evangelical Christian lawyers went directly to the Top too.

It is a welcome opportunity to again cite the constitutionally definitive ruling by SCOTUS stating that civil law under the Constitution is superior to canon law or religious belief always and every time, otherwise the nation invites anarchy.

Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the Court:

REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES (1878)

Can a man excuse his [illegal] practices…because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances….”

http://billofrightsi...ed-states-1878/

(This is a matter of the 14th Amendment equal protection of the laws. Actions against SCOTUS and the constitution for any reason are OTT which is why the federal judge placed the Kentucky clerk in contempt of the court, i.e., the Constitution.

(God and government are two different beasts so any officer of the law who tries to impose God on government violates the Constitution and the laws thereby misusing and abusing their authority and remit. Even the emperor and dictator Caesar made no such claims as this clerk makes.)

The remedy of impeachment is available for the people of the state. The fact that they chose not to use that remedy is perhaps because they are exercising their democratic rights and support her stance.

All the couples denied were able to get licences elsewhere, so who's rights were being abused in this case.

Don't like the state's laws- move to a more agreeable state.

[Jingthing]

Do you think black people would or should accept being forced to go to another government office to be served?!? Of course they wouldn't! Quite simply the behavior of the bigot lady is completely unacceptable.

[Publicus]

Davis at her news conference today went deeper into her defiance of SCOTUS by saying she herself will not issue licenses to same-sex couples but she will not try to stop the deputy clerks from issuing them. The US federal judge had removed the deputy clerks from the contempt order but only after each deputy appeared before him in court and said they would issue the licenses.

Davis wants her name and title off the certificates, which would require action by the state legislature and the governor since the certificates are authorized by the state and are standardized throughout the state, which is of course the common practice in the states.

Davis said however she will add new language of her own to each certificate which is perhaps what God told her to do while she was idling and praying in jail consulting with Him Himself. From now forward each certificate will also say it is issued only by order of the federal court in Kentucky. Sounds like her evangelical Christian lawyers went directly to the Top too.

It is a welcome opportunity to again cite the constitutionally definitive ruling by SCOTUS stating that civil law under the Constitution is superior to canon law or religious belief always and every time, otherwise the nation invites anarchy.

Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the Court:

REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES (1878)

Can a man excuse his [illegal] practices…because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances….”

http://billofrightsi...ed-states-1878/

(This is a matter of the 14th Amendment equal protection of the laws. Actions against SCOTUS and the constitution for any reason are OTT which is why the federal judge placed the Kentucky clerk in contempt of the court, i.e., the Constitution.

(God and government are two different beasts so any officer of the law who tries to impose God on government violates the Constitution and the laws thereby misusing and abusing their authority and remit. Even the emperor and dictator Caesar made no such claims as this clerk makes.)

The remedy of impeachment is available for the people of the state. The fact that they chose not to use that remedy is perhaps because they are exercising their democratic rights and support her stance.

All the couples denied were able to get licences elsewhere, so who's rights were being abused in this case.

Don't like the state's laws- move to a more agreeable state.

Don't like the state's laws- move to a more agreeable state.

There are no other states to move to because SCOTUS invalidated the law in every state that had it. The states have no rights in this because SCOTUS has said what the Constitution says, which is exactly the fundamental job of the Court. It is therefore the mandate of Kentucky to adhere to the Constitution and of the clerk Davis to honor and respect the law of the land. If Davis can't do that then she should quit to get a job at Hooters or some such to get severe with them there.

Contrary to the post the legislature had not 'chosen not to impeach her' because the state legislature has not been sitting during this circus, and the legislature will not reconvene its current session until January. What has happened is the governor has decided not to call the legislature in to a special session and the legislature, also acting independently, has decided not to have a special session over this. That is the constitutional prerogative of each.

Couples denied licenses have been denied licenses in violation of the clerk Davis' oath of office, in violation of the Kentucky constitution, the federal district court, the federal circuit court of appeals, SCOTUS, the Constitution. The clerk is wrong and no couples need to escape Davis' jurisdiction to seek relief in any other jurisdiction to obtain a public document the clerk is mandated to provide on demand in accordance with law and constitutional government, the rule of law in the county.

Accommodating religious belief when it conflicts with the First Amendment and the 14th Amendment to include the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution is wrong and it is unacceptable and impermissible which is why the clerk Davis was found in contempt of the courts, i.e., the Constitution. The Constitution places no burden on the clerk in her public elected office whereas the clerk conversely places on burden on citizens the clerk does not like or approve of for reasons that are illegal and unconstitutional.

The bottom line here is the clerk found her five days and nights in the cooler unpleasant beyond any burden or the comfort of anyone or anything. The clerk therefore told the federal judge she will not wrongfully enforce her religious beliefs on citizens who legally and constitutionally demand the mandated services of her jurisdiction. The state law is invalid and the clerk has been shaken to her few senses. Legally and constitutionally, this thing is over, done with and finished. In short, the clerk got stamped and she got told by the courts to move on with her pathetic life.

So the right need to keep the line moving plse to their next defeat thx.

[sirineou]

Davis at her news conference today went deeper into her defiance of SCOTUS by saying she herself will not issue licenses to same-sex couples but she will not try to stop the deputy clerks from issuing them. The US federal judge had removed the deputy clerks from the contempt order but only after each deputy appeared before him in court and said they would issue the licenses.

Davis wants her name and title off the certificates, which would require action by the state legislature and the governor since the certificates are authorized by the state and are standardized throughout the state, which is of course the common practice in the states.

Davis said however she will add new language of her own to each certificate which is perhaps what God told her to do while she was idling and praying in jail consulting with Him Himself. From now forward each certificate will also say it is issued only by order of the federal court in Kentucky. Sounds like her evangelical Christian lawyers went directly to the Top too.

It is a welcome opportunity to again cite the constitutionally definitive ruling by SCOTUS stating that civil law under the Constitution is superior to canon law or religious belief always and every time, otherwise the nation invites anarchy.

Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the Court:

REYNOLDS V. UNITED STATES (1878)

Can a man excuse his [illegal] practices…because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances….”

http://billofrightsi...ed-states-1878/

(This is a matter of the 14th Amendment equal protection of the laws. Actions against SCOTUS and the constitution for any reason are OTT which is why the federal judge placed the Kentucky clerk in contempt of the court, i.e., the Constitution.

(God and government are two different beasts so any officer of the law who tries to impose God on government violates the Constitution and the laws thereby misusing and abusing their authority and remit. Even the emperor and dictator Caesar made no such claims as this clerk makes.)

The remedy of impeachment is available for the people of the state. The fact that they chose not to use that remedy is perhaps because they are exercising their democratic rights and support her stance.

All the couples denied were able to get licences elsewhere, so who's rights were being abused in this case.

Don't like the state's laws- move to a more agreeable state.

would you had said the same during segregation in the south? They were not impeaching the segregationist officials so they were exercising their democratic rights? Dont like the laws in that state move to an other state?

There are provisions in this country against the tyrany of the majority, the constitution guaranties equal protection under the law And she does not want to put her name on the gay marriage certificate!! So gays don't get the same certificate as everyone else?

Are you kidding me

[sgtsabai]

Unfortunately this "woman" is indictative of what is happening with the new totalitarianism brought on largely by neoliberalsim in the US. She is a willfully ignorant bigot and apparently from reading some of the posts here not the only one. While it is just one part of the totalitarianism that she represents it is a frightening development that has been slow in coming (started around Reagan's regime) but is rapidly gaining control and throughly corrupting the democratic process. Let me quote from Henry A. Giroux: "The new totalitarianism is echoed in the resurgence of religious bigotry that runs through US society like an electric current and is personified in the media celebration of bigots such as Kentucky clerk Kim Davis who believes that her religion gives her the right to both deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples and disavow the separation of church and state." While I know some of our readers either can't or won't read the entire article, there are some complex words in it, it is worth a read.

http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=cyoV62Iljk2zsBvEEswEvsxIPu1miFGl

[chuckd]

Unfortunately this "woman" is indictative of what is happening with the new totalitarianism brought on largely by neoliberalsim in the US. She is a willfully ignorant bigot and apparently from reading some of the posts here not the only one. While it is just one part of the totalitarianism that she represents it is a frightening development that has been slow in coming (started around Reagan's regime) but is rapidly gaining control and throughly corrupting the democratic process. Let me quote from Henry A. Giroux: "The new totalitarianism is echoed in the resurgence of religious bigotry that runs through US society like an electric current and is personified in the media celebration of bigots such as Kentucky clerk Kim Davis who believes that her religion gives her the right to both deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples and disavow the separation of church and state." While I know some of our readers either can't or won't read the entire article, there are some complex words in it, it is worth a read. http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=cyoV62Iljk2zsBvEEswEvsxIPu1miFGl

While wondering who is now proof reading your posts prior to publication, I decided to take up your challenge and see if I could possibly understand some of the big words.

I struggled somewhat in reading your link. Not so much the big words but the fact the article was slamming Trump and neo-liberalism, whatever that might be. I read through the attack on Trump for 23 paragraphs until, voila, I found the reference to Ms. Davis, she of the infamous Kentucky County Clerk fame.

You are correct when quoting Henry A. Giroux precisely. That is what he said about this thread topic and that is roughly all he said about the thread topic.

Since I was now fascinated with Author Giroux, I looked up his Curriculum Vitae and discovered he is a college professor at some hitherto unknown Canadian University going by the name of The McMaster Institute for Innovation & Excellence in Teaching & Learning Air Conditioner Installation and Repair.

He would appear to be a flag burning American along the lines of those old chums of President Obama, Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn, without the felony convictions perhaps.

I only scanned through the last 15 paragraphs and hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me for my laziness.

Honestly, I also found it to be a complete waste of my time...but I did discover a new word or two.

PS: Yeah, I took a little literary license with the Canadian college's moniker. It was in tribute to Michael Brown.

Edited September 16, 2015 by chuckd

[Boon Mee]

'Neo-Liberialism'?

New one on this poster...

[Scott]

Off-topic post and reply removed.

[JemJem]

This is unacceptable; I mean, her refusing to issue licences due to her religious belief. Jail might be extreme and unnecessary though; just fire her !

Also, for example, I have recently read about a Muslim woman (in the US, I think), who refused to serve alcohol in her job, due to her religious belief, and I think she was fired and she then appealed. Sorry, darling; but you just cannot refuse to do something that is part of your work responsibilities, and expect to get away with it.

Edited September 16, 2015 by JemJem

[Tep2]

While wondering who is now proof reading your posts prior to publication, I decided to take up your challenge and see if I could possibly understand some of the big words.

I struggled somewhat in reading your link. Not so much the big words but the fact the article was slamming Trump and neo-liberalism, whatever that might be. I read through the attack on Trump for 23 paragraphs until, voila, I found the reference to Ms. Davis, she of the infamous Kentucky County Clerk fame.

You are correct when quoting Henry A. Giroux precisely. That is what he said about this thread topic and that is roughly all he said about the thread topic.

Since I was now fascinated with Author Giroux, I looked up his Curriculum Vitae and discovered he is a college professor at some hitherto unknown Canadian University going by the name of The McMaster Institute for Innovation & Excellence in Teaching & Learning Air Conditioner Installation and Repair.

He would appear to be a flag burning American along the lines of those old chums of President Obama, Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn, without the felony convictions perhaps.

I only scanned through the last 15 paragraphs and hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me for my laziness.

Honestly, I also found it to be a complete waste of my time...but I did discover a new word or two.

PS: Yeah, I took a little literary license with the Canadian college's moniker. It was in tribute to Michael Brown.

What's the matter with a little flag burning between friends? Or are you one of those strict Constitutional Constructionist who only supports the 1st Amendment when it relates to speech that you support.

You missed neo-liberalism? The past 30 years passed you by. I guess you did your Poly-Sci unit back in the mid-century golden age at Raytheon University - Go Nukes! - at the start of the military industrial complex and were too busy taking hay rides with your sweet heart to the malt shop to pay attention to what started as the Austrian School with Hayek then became the Chicago School that initiated its experiments under the Pinochet regime in Chile. Privatisation by gun point! That's the way to do it. Actually neo-liberalism gave me a new career in Thailand, paid for my condo and a new car every few years and continues to contribute to my retirement plan. I am actually a right-winger economically.

Problem is that American neo-liberalism leads to boom and bust cycles because of an ideological belief in deregulation. My first boss in Thailand who is now Chairman of PTTT told me that he believes in light handed regulation, not no handed regulation and he is one of Thailand's greatest neo-liberals.

To get back on topic, this is one of my problems with Trump. Is he a classic neo-liberal? Surviving in the New York real estate market means he should be an expert on regulation. But no one really knows because his utterances are complete smoke and mirrors. Saw him on CNN this morning. They held the news to wait for his speech. Apparently they were told there would be substantive foreign policy statements. Of course nothing came by the time I switched it off and went to work. Only the usual - these people I like are fantastic and these people I don't like have ugly faces.

PM me Chuck if you want some references on neo liberalism. I did it for my post grad work as part of my retraining for a different career. I even have easy to watch VDO's of a classic history of neo-liberalism called 'The Commanding Heights'. I don't expect you will because you were merely doing a put down of another poster and keeping to your schtick.

[chuckd]

While wondering who is now proof reading your posts prior to publication, I decided to take up your challenge and see if I could possibly understand some of the big words.

I struggled somewhat in reading your link. Not so much the big words but the fact the article was slamming Trump and neo-liberalism, whatever that might be. I read through the attack on Trump for 23 paragraphs until, voila, I found the reference to Ms. Davis, she of the infamous Kentucky County Clerk fame.

You are correct when quoting Henry A. Giroux precisely. That is what he said about this thread topic and that is roughly all he said about the thread topic.

Since I was now fascinated with Author Giroux, I looked up his Curriculum Vitae and discovered he is a college professor at some hitherto unknown Canadian University going by the name of The McMaster Institute for Innovation & Excellence in Teaching & Learning Air Conditioner Installation and Repair.

He would appear to be a flag burning American along the lines of those old chums of President Obama, Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn, without the felony convictions perhaps.

I only scanned through the last 15 paragraphs and hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me for my laziness.

Honestly, I also found it to be a complete waste of my time...but I did discover a new word or two.

PS: Yeah, I took a little literary license with the Canadian college's moniker. It was in tribute to Michael Brown.

What's the matter with a little flag burning between friends? Or are you one of those strict Constitutional Constructionist who only supports the 1st Amendment when it relates to speech that you support.

You missed neo-liberalism? The past 30 years passed you by. I guess you did your Poly-Sci unit back in the mid-century golden age at Raytheon University - Go Nukes! - at the start of the military industrial complex and were too busy taking hay rides with your sweet heart to the malt shop to pay attention to what started as the Austrian School with Hayek then became the Chicago School that initiated its experiments under the Pinochet regime in Chile. Privatisation by gun point! That's the way to do it. Actually neo-liberalism gave me a new career in Thailand, paid for my condo and a new car every few years and continues to contribute to my retirement plan. I am actually a right-winger economically.

Problem is that American neo-liberalism leads to boom and bust cycles because of an ideological belief in deregulation. My first boss in Thailand who is now Chairman of PTTT told me that he believes in light handed regulation, not no handed regulation and he is one of Thailand's greatest neo-liberals.

To get back on topic, this is one of my problems with Trump. Is he a classic neo-liberal? Surviving in the New York real estate market means he should be an expert on regulation. But no one really knows because his utterances are complete smoke and mirrors. Saw him on CNN this morning. They held the news to wait for his speech. Apparently they were told there would be substantive foreign policy statements. Of course nothing came by the time I switched it off and went to work. Only the usual - these people I like are fantastic and these people I don't like have ugly faces.

PM me Chuck if you want some references on neo liberalism. I did it for my post grad work as part of my retraining for a different career. I even have easy to watch VDO's of a classic history of neo-liberalism called 'The Commanding Heights'. I don't expect you will because you were merely doing a put down of another poster and keeping to your schtick.

Thanks, but don't bother calling me...I'll call you when the hay ride is over.

[Publicus]

Stick a fork in her because she's done and so is her concocted issue. This high profile defeat of right-wing evangelical absolutists confirms that God no longer has authority over marriage in the United States. God can continue to participate in and to host certain rituals and ceremonies, but God no longer decides.

If however marriages can be made in Heaven then Kim Davis and the people like her will need to recognize it applies to any marriage.

Anything short of that means she and others like her will need to respect and obey the law from here on out.

Case closed.

[Jingthing]

Yep. The bigot lady lost. A good example to other religious whackos who think they are above the law. Nip that idiotic ant-gay movement in the bud. They're not fooling anyone. They cherry pick bible dogma specifically about anti-gay stuff and ignore everything else. It's all about anti-gay bigotry with that religious crap as obvious fake cover.

Edited September 17, 2015 by Jingthing

[notmyself]

They cherry pick bible dogma specifically about anti-gay stuff and ignore everything else. It's all about anti-gay bigotry with that religious crap as obvious fake cover.

[thaibeachlovers]

Yep. The bigot lady lost. A good example to other religious whackos who think they are above the law. Nip that idiotic ant-gay movement in the bud. They're not fooling anyone. They cherry pick bible dogma specifically about anti-gay stuff and ignore everything else. It's all about anti-gay bigotry with that religious crap as obvious fake cover.

They cherry pick bible dogma specifically about anti-gay stuff and ignore everything else.

The only homosexual references in the Bible ( the Jewish Bible as well as Christian ), and the Muslim book are decidedly against homosexuals, usually requiring horrible penalties. If one is actually a believer, and not just a Sunday Christian, Saturday Jew, Friday Muslim, one doesn't have an option on belief, and who are you to decry the millions that truly believe?

BTW, if religion and government are really separated in the US, why does the president always say "God bless America" at official functions?

[sirineou]

Yep. The bigot lady lost. A good example to other religious whackos who think they are above the law. Nip that idiotic ant-gay movement in the bud. They're not fooling anyone. They cherry pick bible dogma specifically about anti-gay stuff and ignore everything else. It's all about anti-gay bigotry with that religious crap as obvious fake cover.

They cherry pick bible dogma specifically about anti-gay stuff and ignore everything else.

The only homosexual references in the Bible ( the Jewish Bible as well as Christian ), and the Muslim book are decidedly against homosexuals, usually requiring horrible penalties.

If one is actually a believer, and not just a Sunday Christian, Saturday Jew, Friday Muslim, one doesn't have an option on belief, and who are you to decry the millions that truly believe?

BTW, if religion and government are really separated in the US, why does the president always say "God bless America" at official functions?

because he is not referring to particular god with a particular set of rules that we should all follow

just simple that god should bless America, why if there is a god you dont want him/her to bless America?

I do, especially the part of America I am in.

[thaibeachlovers]

Yep. The bigot lady lost. A good example to other religious whackos who think they are above the law. Nip that idiotic ant-gay movement in the bud. They're not fooling anyone. They cherry pick bible dogma specifically about anti-gay stuff and ignore everything else. It's all about anti-gay bigotry with that religious crap as obvious fake cover.

They cherry pick bible dogma specifically about anti-gay stuff and ignore everything else.

The only homosexual references in the Bible ( the Jewish Bible as well as Christian ), and the Muslim book are decidedly against homosexuals, usually requiring horrible penalties.

If one is actually a believer, and not just a Sunday Christian, Saturday Jew, Friday Muslim, one doesn't have an option on belief, and who are you to decry the millions that truly believe?

BTW, if religion and government are really separated in the US, why does the president always say "God bless America" at official functions?

because he is not referring to particular god with a particular set of rules that we should all follow

just simple that god should bless America, why if there is a god you dont want him/her to bless America?

I do, especially the part of America I am in.

Just seems contradictory to say that God isn't involved with government and them ask him/ her/ it to bless the government and people.

Besides, why would God help out if one specifically says God isn't a part of government?

Edited September 17, 2015 by thaibeachlovers

[pitrevie]

Unfortunately this "woman" is indictative of what is happening with the new totalitarianism brought on largely by neoliberalsim in the US. She is a willfully ignorant bigot and apparently from reading some of the posts here not the only one. While it is just one part of the totalitarianism that she represents it is a frightening development that has been slow in coming (started around Reagan's regime) but is rapidly gaining control and throughly corrupting the democratic process. Let me quote from Henry A. Giroux: "The new totalitarianism is echoed in the resurgence of religious bigotry that runs through US society like an electric current and is personified in the media celebration of bigots such as Kentucky clerk Kim Davis who believes that her religion gives her the right to both deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples and disavow the separation of church and state." While I know some of our readers either can't or won't read the entire article, there are some complex words in it, it is worth a read. http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=cyoV62Iljk2zsBvEEswEvsxIPu1miFGl

While wondering who is now proof reading your posts prior to publication, I decided to take up your challenge and see if I could possibly understand some of the big words.

I struggled somewhat in reading your link. Not so much the big words but the fact the article was slamming Trump and neo-liberalism, whatever that might be. I read through the attack on Trump for 23 paragraphs until, voila, I found the reference to Ms. Davis, she of the infamous Kentucky County Clerk fame.

You are correct when quoting Henry A. Giroux precisely. That is what he said about this thread topic and that is roughly all he said about the thread topic.

Since I was now fascinated with Author Giroux, I looked up his Curriculum Vitae and discovered he is a college professor at some hitherto unknown Canadian University going by the name of The McMaster Institute for Innovation & Excellence in Teaching & Learning Air Conditioner Installation and Repair.

He would appear to be a flag burning American along the lines of those old chums of President Obama, Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn, without the felony convictions perhaps.

I only scanned through the last 15 paragraphs and hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me for my laziness.

Honestly, I also found it to be a complete waste of my time...but I did discover a new word or two.

PS: Yeah, I took a little literary license with the Canadian college's moniker. It was in tribute to Michael Brown.

Perhaps this quote from Barry Goldwater (no leftie) will convince you but I doubt it.

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

[Publicus]

Yep. The bigot lady lost. A good example to other religious whackos who think they are above the law. Nip that idiotic ant-gay movement in the bud. They're not fooling anyone. They cherry pick bible dogma specifically about anti-gay stuff and ignore everything else. It's all about anti-gay bigotry with that religious crap as obvious fake cover.

They cherry pick bible dogma specifically about anti-gay stuff and ignore everything else.

The only homosexual references in the Bible ( the Jewish Bible as well as Christian ), and the Muslim book are decidedly against homosexuals, usually requiring horrible penalties. If one is actually a believer, and not just a Sunday Christian, Saturday Jew, Friday Muslim, one doesn't have an option on belief, and who are you to decry the millions that truly believe?

BTW, if religion and government are really separated in the US, why does the president always say "God bless America" at official functions?

When POTUS says "God Bless America" at official functions Kim Davis and people like her scoff with contempt. Davis and her throngs have now been subdued by the rule of law and Constitutional government.

Kim Davis et all have been routed by American Constitutionalism and the rule of secular law because the Bible and all theistic religion texts were written almost 2000 years ago or more which was also before the Reformation, Age of Science; Reason, the European Enlightenment, the Renaissance. Before the Constitution in convention in 1789.

The Bible from cover to cover is ancient, primitive, arbitrary, illogical, written by absolutist authoritarians males for same, one dimensional, mystical, localised, irrational.

Moreover the planet is grossly overpopulated and modern science has made the reality of reproduction by other means possible and real.

When I meet an evangelical or other rightwingnut Christian literalist or extremist I always ask 'em who they hate, in alphabetical order plse thx and to speak slowly and calmly.

There's no changing Davis so she has to be locked away until she submits to Constitutionalism and the rule of law. This case proves the point.

Askrasiel, Angel of Justice

Equal Justice Under Law.

[squarethecircle]

"When POTUS says "God Bless America" at official functions Kim Davis and people like her scoff with contempt. Davis and her throngs have now been subdued by the rule of law and Constitutional government."

Well the US Constitution does not mention marriage and in fact - de facto - confers it to the States by default. More accurately: Constitutionalism has been routed by activist judges and self-appointed crusaders on the left.

"The Bible from cover to cover is ancient, primitive, arbitrary, illogical, written by absolutist authoritarians males for same, one dimensional, mystical, localised, irrational."

Well the Old Testament. The Book of Proverbs and most/all of the New Testament gives solid moral instruction and good advice.

"When I meet an evangelical or other rightwingnut Christian literalist or extremist I always ask 'em who they hate, in alphabetical order plse thx and to speak slowly and calmly."

Well now I will start doing the same with leftwingnut socialist do-gooders.

[sgtsabai]

Davis and her ilk are ill informed to say the least and anti-American for sure. America is and always has been a secular country since the signing of the Constitution. The bible nor her right wingnut views do NOT rule, nor should they have any say whatsoever in how America is governed, the law and the Constitution rules. She can go to church and pray for the death and hell fire damnation of all homosexuals, run around the church or her house speaking tongues (babbling like the idiot she is), fall down and have a jesus inspired fit or what ever, she cannot impose her false beliefs on others.

[Publicus]

"When POTUS says "God Bless America" at official functions Kim Davis and people like her scoff with contempt. Davis and her throngs have now been subdued by the rule of law and Constitutional government."

Well the US Constitution does not mention marriage and in fact - de facto - confers it to the States by default. More accurately: Constitutionalism has been routed by activist judges and self-appointed crusaders on the left.

"The Bible from cover to cover is ancient, primitive, arbitrary, illogical, written by absolutist authoritarians males for same, one dimensional, mystical, localised, irrational."

Well the Old Testament. The Book of Proverbs and most/all of the New Testament gives solid moral instruction and good advice.

"When I meet an evangelical or other rightwingnut Christian literalist or extremist I always ask 'em who they hate, in alphabetical order plse thx and to speak slowly and calmly."

Well now I will start doing the same with leftwingnut socialist do-gooders.

The right would pray tell need to define "do-gooders" which would be interesting indeed.

We already know that until now and Bernie Sanders the US mild-mannered left have been dormant since their anti-Vietnam war activity roughly 1965-75 that gradually spread to the mainstream of the body politic. We know US "socialism" makes the European left laugh out loud.

We know that this US evangelical religious fanaticism scares the rest of the world despite the fact the rule of law and Constitutionalism keep it in check.

So now the right needs to say what a "do-gooder" on the left might be in their fringe views from way out there. The Davis case in Kentucky is straight-up Constitutionalism and the rule of law, entirely and completely. Nothing else, nothing more. So what and whom are the "do-gooders" of the "leftwingnut socialist" elements. Pray tell.

[squarethecircle]

"So now the right needs to say what a "do-gooder" on the left might be in their fringe views from way out there. The Davis case in Kentucky is straight-up Constitutionalism and the rule of law, entirely and completely. Nothing else, nothing more. So what and whom are the "do-gooders" of the "leftwingnut socialist" elements. Pray tell. "

Well I'll quote from Urban Dictionary: "[A do-gooder is] a person who wants to "do you" good, as in take your money, property, and personal freedom. Usually a liberal or a leftist in political orientation. Synonym: bleeding heart liberal."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=do-gooder

There are do-gooders on the right: the main issue they have been behind is drug outlawing, which has fueled billions or trillions of dollars into international crime syndicates, in accordance with the "law of unintended consequences."

The "law of unintended consequences" also applies to leftist do-gooder programs like welfare, which produces an addictive cycle of dependence in the people it is supposed to help.

Another way to see the difference between a do-gooder (imposter) and good-doer. The do-gooder wants to use other people's resources to carry out their plans. The good-doer uses their own resources to create value.

Does this make sense?

[Publicus]

"So now the right needs to say what a "do-gooder" on the left might be in their fringe views from way out there. The Davis case in Kentucky is straight-up Constitutionalism and the rule of law, entirely and completely. Nothing else, nothing more. So what and whom are the "do-gooders" of the "leftwingnut socialist" elements. Pray tell. "

Well I'll quote from Urban Dictionary: "[A do-gooder is] a person who wants to "do you" good, as in take your money, property, and personal freedom. Usually a liberal or a leftist in political orientation. Synonym: bleeding heart liberal."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=do-gooder

There are do-gooders on the right: the main issue they have been behind is drug outlawing, which has fueled billions or trillions of dollars into international crime syndicates, in accordance with the "law of unintended consequences."

The "law of unintended consequences" also applies to leftist do-gooder programs like welfare, which produces an addictive cycle of dependence in the people it is supposed to help.

Another way to see the difference between a do-gooder (imposter) and good-doer. The do-gooder wants to use other people's resources to carry out their plans. The good-doer uses their own resources to create value.

Does this make sense?

It is focused on politicos, politics and political acts/views, which certainly reflects the posting and the dialogue in our posts. It makes sense but only from the point of view of conservatives to include almost everyone on the political right.

On the other side of the ledger the tea party have their idea of good government and of citizens going good, which is to reduce taxes as if this were the time of Pres Coolege who famously said, "The business of America is business." The business of Pres Coolege was however to run head on into the Great Depression which was only aggravated by Pres Hoover, another do-gooder feed the world Republican who refused to feed his own countrymen.

The evangelical right wants to do good by making laws promoting religion and by joining church and state to the advantage of religion. The do-gooders on the right want to preserve traditional marriage, strike the voting rights act from the books, mass deport 11 million people to begin with, build a wall to create a fortress America -- they want to shut down those Muslim training camps as stated to Mr Trump during his political rally for wacko rightwing do-gooders the other day.

This clerk is a do-gooder too if there ever wuz one. So I'd guess one person's do-gooder is another person's right wing evangelical crackpot.

Here none the less is some perspective away from politics....

Winners of the 2015 DoGooder Awards

http://blog.see3.com/winners-of-the-2015-dogooder-awards/

Edited September 19, 2015 by Publicus

[sgtsabai]

Here is a little something for supporters of right wing wacko Davis and her un-American wrong headed, ignorant (no-make that stupid), homophobic faux "christian" sharia. https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/11/1420244/-One-Of-The-Best-Takedown-Memes-Regarding-Kim-Davis?detail=emailclassic .Frankly, the picture of Malala Yousafzai says it all.

[sirineou]

Yep. The bigot lady lost. A good example to other religious whackos who think they are above the law. Nip that idiotic ant-gay movement in the bud. They're not fooling anyone. They cherry pick bible dogma specifically about anti-gay stuff and ignore everything else. It's all about anti-gay bigotry with that religious crap as obvious fake cover.

They cherry pick bible dogma specifically about anti-gay stuff and ignore everything else.

The only homosexual references in the Bible ( the Jewish Bible as well as Christian ), and the Muslim book are decidedly against homosexuals, usually requiring horrible penalties.

If one is actually a believer, and not just a Sunday Christian, Saturday Jew, Friday Muslim, one doesn't have an option on belief, and who are you to decry the millions that truly believe?

BTW, if religion and government are really separated in the US, why does the president always say "God bless America" at official functions?

because he is not referring to particular god with a particular set of rules that we should all follow

just simple that god should bless America, why if there is a god you dont want him/her to bless America?

I do, especially the part of America I am in.

Just seems contradictory to say that God isn't involved with government and them ask him/ her/ it to bless the government and people.

Besides, why would God help out if one specifically says God isn't a part of government?

Not at all

first of all I am an Atheist, but for those who believe in such things, why would it be contradictory to ask an uninvolved

God to get involved by blessing that which you want him/her to be involved in?

I dont believe God is involved in your replies, especially the ones where you disagree with me, but that does not stop me from asking him/her to smite you.

Why God would want to get involved, you would have to ask him/her. Let me know when it answers.

Edited September 20, 2015 by sirineou

[thaibeachlovers]

"So now the right needs to say what a "do-gooder" on the left might be in their fringe views from way out there. The Davis case in Kentucky is straight-up Constitutionalism and the rule of law, entirely and completely. Nothing else, nothing more. So what and whom are the "do-gooders" of the "leftwingnut socialist" elements. Pray tell. "

Well I'll quote from Urban Dictionary: "[A do-gooder is] a person who wants to "do you" good, as in take your money, property, and personal freedom. Usually a liberal or a leftist in political orientation. Synonym: bleeding heart liberal."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=do-gooder

There are do-gooders on the right: the main issue they have been behind is drug outlawing, which has fueled billions or trillions of dollars into international crime syndicates, in accordance with the "law of unintended consequences."

The "law of unintended consequences" also applies to leftist do-gooder programs like welfare, which produces an addictive cycle of dependence in the people it is supposed to help.

Another way to see the difference between a do-gooder (imposter) and good-doer. The do-gooder wants to use other people's resources to carry out their plans. The good-doer uses their own resources to create value.

Does this make sense?

It is focused on politicos, politics and political acts/views, which certainly reflects the posting and the dialogue in our posts. It makes sense but only from the point of view of conservatives to include almost everyone on the political right.

On the other side of the ledger the tea party have their idea of good government and of citizens going good, which is to reduce taxes as if this were the time of Pres Coolege who famously said, "The business of America is business." The business of Pres Coolege was however to run head on into the Great Depression which was only aggravated by Pres Hoover, another do-gooder feed the world Republican who refused to feed his own countrymen.

The evangelical right wants to do good by making laws promoting religion and by joining church and state to the advantage of religion. The do-gooders on the right want to preserve traditional marriage, strike the voting rights act from the books, mass deport 11 million people to begin with, build a wall to create a fortress America -- they want to shut down those Muslim training camps as stated to Mr Trump during his political rally for wacko rightwing do-gooders the other day.

This clerk is a do-gooder too if there ever wuz one. So I'd guess one person's do-gooder is another person's right wing evangelical crackpot.

Here none the less is some perspective away from politics....

Winners of the 2015 DoGooder Awards

http://blog.see3.com/winners-of-the-2015-dogooder-awards/

Ask yourself what would happen to you if you became an "illegal" in LOS. Would you be welcomed with open arms and given lots and lots of welfare, or would you be incarcerated and left there till someone bought you a ticket home?

Hint, it's not the first option.

If you are against a proper illegal proof wall, you are for illegal immigrants, and bad people like gang bangers and drug cartel members entering the US.

[thaibeachlovers]

Here is a little something for supporters of right wing wacko Davis and her un-American wrong headed, ignorant (no-make that stupid), homophobic faux "christian" sharia. https://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/09/11/1420244/-One-Of-The-Best-Takedown-Memes-Regarding-Kim-Davis?detail=emailclassic .Frankly, the picture of Malala Yousafzai says it all.

Good grief, there are so many people using inappropriate propaganda to support their side of the story.

Firstly, she is a Muslim and her religion requires very nasty things to happen to homosexuals, so not the best example to use.

Secondly, the Christian religion is not much to do with Jesus, if you actually look into it. It was hijacked by Paul and changed to something else. There is a difference between believing in what Jesus said and what the church teaches. The Old Testament is the Jewish book and full of bad things. Only the first 4 books of the New Testament are relevant to Jesus. After that it becomes a Roman religion under Paul with bad things like killing homosexuals.

BTW, Jesus may never have condemned homosexuals, but he never supported them either. He was a Jew, and his religion demanded bad things happen to homosexuals. What he would have meant was that it was a sin and should be forgiven, like everything else if the person truly repented of their sin.

[sirineou]

"So now the right needs to say what a "do-gooder" on the left might be in their fringe views from way out there. The Davis case in Kentucky is straight-up Constitutionalism and the rule of law, entirely and completely. Nothing else, nothing more. So what and whom are the "do-gooders" of the "leftwingnut socialist" elements. Pray tell. "

Well I'll quote from Urban Dictionary: "[A do-gooder is] a person who wants to "do you" good, as in take your money, property, and personal freedom. Usually a liberal or a leftist in political orientation. Synonym: bleeding heart liberal."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=do-gooder

There are do-gooders on the right: the main issue they have been behind is drug outlawing, which has fueled billions or trillions of dollars into international crime syndicates, in accordance with the "law of unintended consequences."

The "law of unintended consequences" also applies to leftist do-gooder programs like welfare, which produces an addictive cycle of dependence in the people it is supposed to help.

Another way to see the difference between a do-gooder (imposter) and good-doer. The do-gooder wants to use other people's resources to carry out their plans. The good-doer uses their own resources to create value.

Does this make sense?

It is focused on politicos, politics and political acts/views, which certainly reflects the posting and the dialogue in our posts. It makes sense but only from the point of view of conservatives to include almost everyone on the political right.

On the other side of the ledger the tea party have their idea of good government and of citizens going good, which is to reduce taxes as if this were the time of Pres Coolege who famously said, "The business of America is business." The business of Pres Coolege was however to run head on into the Great Depression which was only aggravated by Pres Hoover, another do-gooder feed the world Republican who refused to feed his own countrymen.

The evangelical right wants to do good by making laws promoting religion and by joining church and state to the advantage of religion. The do-gooders on the right want to preserve traditional marriage, strike the voting rights act from the books, mass deport 11 million people to begin with, build a wall to create a fortress America -- they want to shut down those Muslim training camps as stated to Mr Trump during his political rally for wacko rightwing do-gooders the other day.

This clerk is a do-gooder too if there ever wuz one. So I'd guess one person's do-gooder is another person's right wing evangelical crackpot.

Here none the less is some perspective away from politics....

Winners of the 2015 DoGooder Awards

http://blog.see3.com/winners-of-the-2015-dogooder-awards/

Ask yourself what would happen to you if you became an "illegal" in LOS. Would you be welcomed with open arms and given lots and lots of welfare, or would you be incarcerated and left there till someone bought you a ticket home?

Hint, it's not the first option.

If you are against a proper illegal proof wall, you are for illegal immigrants, and bad people like gang bangers and drug cartel members entering the US.

Dont know what illegal aliens have to do with gay marriage licensing but...

Though I agree with your first statement, I disagree with your second and your premise

"If you are against a proper illegal proof wall, you are for illegal immigrants, and bad people like gang bangers and drug cartel members entering the US."

if you believed that "a proper illegal proof wall," was the best way to go about it, and you were against it, then clearly you would be for " bad people like gang bangers and drug cartel members entering the US ''

but many of as dont.

I dont want to put words in Publicus mouth, but I dont believe he does also. We believe there are better ways to deal with the problem, if a problem exists.

PS

Edited September 20, 2015 by sirineou