Marriage existed long before Christianity and religion. In ancient Greece it had nothing to do with religion.

No adult should have to obtain permission for a contract, but a marriage contract must be acknowledged as meeting the criteria necessary for its legal and financial implications, including tax rules.

Thanks. I thinks it's one of the important points not seen elsewhere.

Davis: "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." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/a...

If anyone wants to see in action that this about evangelical religious faith then watch these short videos to see the frenzied religious emotions in the religious rhetoric:

- Rally of the faithful before Davis' appearance after prison
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruvWb...

Supporters singing hymns and waving crosses, signs and flags "Appeal to Heaven", "We Stand with God" "Supreme Court the new ISIS of America incarcerating Christians"


- Kim Davis speaking to the faithful after release from prison under the condition that she not interfere with the issuing of marriage licenses:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggsZQ...
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politic...

"Thank you all so much. I love you all so very much. I just want to give God the glory. His people have rallied, and [shouting] you are a strong people. [hand in air] We serve a living God who knows exactly where each and every one of us is at. Just keep on pressin. Don't let down. Because He is here. He's worthy. He's worthy. I love you guys. Thank you so much."

Supporter waving Bible and yelling: "The Bible trumps man's law every day. The Bible is the Word of God and it is greater than the law. Signs: "Obey God rather than men. Act 5:29" "We stand for the Bible" "Jesus Loves You"

Signs: "Supreme Screw-Ups: Outlaw Prayer 1962 Outlaw Bible 1963 Murder Unborn Babies 1973 Legalize Pervert Marriages 2015" "Gay Agenda: Destroy Bible Christianity"


- Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee's anti-intellectual religious account of a mystical founding of the country, claiming that Davis is the 'second coming':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeYE2...

"I don't think it is possible to explain America apart from the Providence of Almighty God. There is no other explanation for how this country could have come into being. There is no other explanation for how this country could have been sustained. The only explanation is that God intervened. And I believe this week, once again, as Forest Gump so wonderfully said, 'God showed up'. And he showed up in the form, of an elected Democrat, named Kim Davis."

Violent Agreement!

The tyranny occurred when federal, state and local governments granted privileges to heterosexual married couples that were denied to gay couples. If that had not been the case, the issue would not even have come up. Regarding the “will of the people,” the latest Gallup poll shows 55% of Americans support gay marriage, with much higher support among young people. Doesn’t sound like tyranny to me.

The reason why I emphasize rewriting law rather than just disobeying law is that she is the public official in charge of carrying out the law. As the County Clerk, she is the bureaucrat who among other functions runs the department that issues marriage licenses. She ordered the six staff members (one of whom is her son) not to issue the licenses. That is why it is a bureaucrat making law, not just violating it, and is why it is even more dangerous than what you describe. It takes religious based anarchy into government itself in the form of whims of rule by theocracy on principle.

One of the basic principles of proper government is that government officials do not act by right. The citizens act by right, limited only in what they cannot do, in accordance with objective law. Government officials are limited in what they can and must do. When a citizen breaks the law it is an ordinary crime. When a bureaucrat breaks laws he is enforcing his own laws, which is a fundamental corruption of government itself, and that is what these activists want. We are already suffering under discretionary bureaucracy in powerful agencies such as the viro and tax agencies trampling property rights, Obama's pen with immigration and the EPA, etc. They have paved the way for more open religious zealots who want to do the same on behalf of the whims of religious faith.

This is why the Davis case is fundamentally worse than someone committing a crime while claiming the right to do it on principle. That kind of anarchy moved inside government is tyranny.

Yeah, Maybe, but not in My Book...

http://www.plusaf.com/lessons/noright...

From the supreme court ruling;

The Supreme Court Of The United States
"No. 14-556. Argued April 28, 2015 - Decided June 26, 2015"
"Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex AND (emphasis mine) to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State"

From the 14th amendment;
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

I guess she is out now but she was right where she belongs until she resigns, is removed or does her job.

I agree that the government should have no say whatsoever if two consenting adults want to make a lifetime commitment to each other.
However, DOMA is settled law, has not been repealed, and therefore, the subject of this post should not be in jail for her refusal to sign an approval for a same sex couple to marry. If we are no longer a nation of laws, then further conversations concerning the constitution are useless.

"to not be offended"... Now she probably has a case, there.

Without reading the whole thing, that was an attempt to define marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman, allow states to refuse to recognize same sex marriages, and limit the benefits that same sex marriages were eligible for. All of which is still dependent upon having to ask permission to get married in the first place.

Thanks, Kevin! Now, given that reading, what's all the kerfluffle about this thing in the first place?!

Oh, wait... she's got the right to not be offended by any Supremes' decisions?

LOL.

That's not the Pot, must be the Charcoal.

Still laughing.

From the supreme court ruling;

The Supreme Court Of The United States
"No. 14-556. Argued April 28, 2015 - Decided June 26, 2015"
"Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State

In case you needed an even more clearer understanding of your confusion. :)

What happens when there are lawsuits brought against specific religions who refuse to conduct a gay marriage ceremony or acknowledge such? You can't say that isn't coming. And that has been the angle all along.

As for the legal rights, power-of-attorney solves the majority of those issues. All the others could be addressed through standard legislative processes.

"gay couples should not be treated differently from non-gay couples by any level of government, local, state or federal."

Why? Is not the anatomy different? Of course! That alone means that the pairing is inherently different from a heterosexual couple. That there are numerous other differences and very few similarities is ignored in this case for some reason I can not fathom. That these differences exist and are indisputable give plenty of reason to treat them separately. Can they still be given the same legal footing for purposes of government benefits (barring the fact that such shouldn't exist at all)? Absolutely. All that would be needed is for the appropriate laws to be passed.

Instead, these agitators demanded that 1.8% of the population be able to dictate to the rest of society what constitutes marriage in spite of reality. State after State rejected the redefinition of marriage (but Vermont's motion to treat it equally passed) when put to popular vote (even in California), and yet somehow a few activist Federal judges get to override the will of the people and redefine a term which has recognized reality for millennia? Sounds like tyranny to me.

Isn't that what the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) 1996 all about? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense...

Congress didn't pass laws making any marriage legal. Only laws that require you to ask permission to get married. Why is that not the issue that everyone is up in arms over? That is far more offensive than gay marriage should ever be.

It began as a racial division and control tool, became anchored by tax laws, and continues as just a plain old tool for division and control. And it ought to be the issue that has everybody up in arms. Instead we argue over redefining the word marriage, religious freedom or the supposed first amendment violations of a deranged government employee. It's an individual rights issue and it starts with being forced to ask permission.
+1

From the 14th amendment;
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

"Equal protection of the laws" being the applicable phrase here, it doesn't seem like this is one of those cases of the Supreme Court overstepping their authority. Although there are plenty.

From the supreme court ruling;

The Supreme Court Of The United States
"No. 14-556. Argued April 28, 2015 - Decided June 26, 2015"
"Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State"

What I am referring to is the 14th Amendment. If I were referring to the "Full Faith and Credit" clause, I would have said so. Even without this clause, the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment would still apply.

How does legal recognition of a private contract "infringe" on the First Amendment rights of anyone else? It doesn't. And calling it a "same-sex union" does not allow gay couples to achieve the "legal punch", as you put it, of married couples. Such legal recognition affects the amount of federal and state income taxes the couple pays, spousal Social Security benefits, employer health insurance for a spouse, visitation rights and decision-making rights if a spouse is ill, and many other important issues.

At the heart of the matter, however, is whether or not the enforcement of that recognition infringes on the First Amendment rights of others. That is what so many are concerned about. Could they have called it a same-sex union and retained all the legal punch without altering the definition of marriage? Absolutely. That they chose not to is particularly of notice here.

Please note that I am not siding with this particular Clerk. What concerns me is that we are going to see in very short order the rights of individuals to believe in what they choose challenged by these very advocates. They seek to force everyone to acknowledge their contractual arrangements regardless of their religious or other beliefs. Once government asserts that religious organizations no longer have the right to refuse to acknowledge these types of unions, the First Amendment will be dead and with it the Constitution of the United States. We will have fallen into a state of tyranny.

Article III and Amendment XI of the Constitution lay out the nature of the judicial power. Authority extends to laws made pursuant to this Constitution where the enumerated powers are few and defined, Treaties made under authority of the Constitution, matters arising in admiralty and maritime jurisdictions and disputes between one or more States.

The Supreme Court may have original jurisdiction such as cases involving ambassadors and original or appellate jurisdiction to cases in which a State is a party. It is this latter situation that appears to open the way for the SC to set law for States. But that is even limited. In this case of same sex marriage a suit brought forth challenging a State Law regarding the matter can be heard by the SC. But they would be only looking at whether it is the States purview to make law regarding the topic, either outlawing same sex marriage or legalizing. They cannot overturn a law that is indeed within the power of the State to legislate. And as we know by the Xth Amendment, the power remaining with the States are many and the power enumerated to the federal government are few and defined. The power of the SC to overturn State Law is limited to where the example State is usurping these few powers given the federal government. Sanctuary City would be an example.

But this is where the federal judiciary has way overstepped their authority. And it is nothing new. Ever expanding interpretations of the 14th Amendment, the Commerce Clause, the Supremacy Clause, the Property Clause, the Enclave Clause, etc, just keeps chugging along to the evisceration of State's Rights and sovereignty.