RowdyRebel

I guess time will tell on that. If it leaks, I'll replace it with a plug. It does have a metal valve cap with a rubber seal, so that should prevent any leaks even if the valve wants to. Hell, the valve was previously used to check line pressure on my air tank when I was using a regulator...so it's used to being operated anywhere from 15 psi to 155 psi. The cooling system is only going to make 15-17 psi, and the valve is at the top of the tank...about 2-3" below the overflow relief, so even if it DOES leak, we're not looking at catastrophic failure of the truck that'll leave me on the side of the road. Won't be as bad as the OLD radiator was, anyway...

I stopped by Advance Auto (where I bought the radiator) and had a little chat with the guy who sold me the part. He knows me well, as that's where I picked up most of the parts & pieces for the 1990 GMC Suburban 3/4 ton 4x4 I bought for the wife that had been sitting for 9+ years. Anyway, I told him what had happened and during the course of the conversation I mentioned he ought to call the supplier and tell them he had an "irate customer chew him a new ass hole because the 'universal' radiator they said would fit didn't have the proper fittings for his vehicle". He even stepped outside to view my work, saying it was a damn good idea because people pay $200 for those cooling system pressurization pumps to check for leaks...and now I can use any bicycle pump. Anyway, it was good for a laugh.

So while in town in the F250, smelled a little antifreeze. Popped the hood and sure enough, the left side tank had what looked to be dry rot and was cracked. So, picked up a new radiator and upper & lower hoses, a couple gallons of antifreeze, and went home. After dinner, had the old parts off and new parts on in under 30 minutes...but couldn't fill it up for another hour and a half. The "universal fit" radiator came with 3 different pairs of fittings to hook up the heater hoses, but NO plugs for vehicles that route the hot water from elsewhere. Dug through 3 buckets of "miscellaneous fittings" I have out in the garage and even the bucket of fittings I carry in the truck...but no 1/4" pipe plugs to be found. I had air quick-connect fittings, adapters to go to 1/4" hard plastic air line, and even some 3/8" plugs...but couldn't find anything that would work. That's when I found them...a pair of 1/4" to 1/8" reducers. I had found a 1/8" drain cock and I knew I had a tire valve that threads into 1/8" pipe as well...so that's what I ended up using. Got 'em put together and installed, and 30 minutes later she was filled up & burped. Now I can check the pressure in the system with a tire gauge if I wanted to. Funny thing is, when I mention that if it weren't for my "junk", I wouldn't have been able to finish the job 'til stores opened up and I ran to town for what I needed...which would've meant canceling what we were going to do tomorrow...she says "no comment". Not the first time, and won't be the last, that my "junk" has proven useful. Oh well...at least the truck's fixed.

Again, I try to make my points without invoking God. I've pointed out some of the ways society benefits from traditional marriage. I've made note of a few of the burdens same-sex marriage places upon society. Can anyone name even 1 benefit society sees as a result of recognizing a same-sex "marriage"? If not, I don't see why society needs to recognize them. Just as you have the right to wildly swing your fists, that right ends at the tip of my nose. Same sex "marriage" is the same. From a public policy standpoint, they have the right to do whatever they desire, have relations with whomever they choose...until it impinges upon society. If there are benefits to be weighed against the burdens, let's hear them.

There are those who would love to believe that the War of Northern Aggression was about slavery, and it wasn't...until Lincoln saw that the South might prevail if foreign governments gave assistance (much like France did during the War for Independence from England)...THAT was the reason behind making slavery the issue in order to keep Europe out of it. Facts are facts, and while you are entitled to your own opinions, you cannot change the facts. As hard as the US Government tried to rewrite history to paint the South as "evil" for attempting to break away and do their own thing, they can't change the facts. Sure, it's EASY to teach "Lincoln was the BEST PRESIDENT EVER" and that the war was justified because it "freed the slaves". The whole "freeing the slaves" thing was never Lincoln's intent until he saw he might lose. The public education system in this country is a disgrace, white-washing history...and it is only getting worse. If I had simply pointed out his lack of knowledge in regards to the question he posed and left it at that, you might have had a point. However, I took the opportunity to present the facts. Ignorance is a curable condition...all one has to do is open a few books and learn a little more on the subject. There are subjects on which I'm completely ignorant...anything having to do with a cooking, for example. Then there are subjects I am not. We're all that way. Nobody is an expert on everything. Perhaps I could have been less direct in making my point...more "politically correct", but I've never been one to do that.

^^^Right there is a person oblivious to the truth. The Constitution of the Confederate States of America was adopted March 11, 1861. The battle at Fort Sumter didn't begin until a month later on April 12. Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America starts out as follows: So a full month before the first battle began, the Confederacy had already outlawed the importation of slaves from foreign lands, and granted Congress the power to outlaw importing them from the United States. It wasn't until January 1, 1863 when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclaimation...which didn't free a single slave. The states and territories loyal to the union were exempted, and he didn't have jurisdiction over the Confederate States. The 13th Amendment wasn't ratified until December 6, 1865...4 years and 9 months AFTER the Confederacy had placed the first Constitutional curbs on slavery and the slave trade. But back to the topic at hand. Slavery was abolished through the Constitutional process. 2/3 vote in both houses of congress, then 3/4 of the states approved in order to ratify that change. This did not happen with same-sex marriage, as the people both through their elected officials (Defense of Marriage Act) as well as at the ballot box (31 states out of 32 that put the measure before the voters to amend state constitutions) overwhelmingly supported traditional marriage. The will of the people was overturned when 5 activist justices decided they knew better than the people...and THAT is the problem. Government derives its power by the consent of the governed. When the governed repeatedly say "THIS IS WHAT MARRIAGE IS", the government (judicial branch included) does not have the power to say "No, it's something different." There is a right way and a wrong way to change the law. The right way involves the people speaking through their elected representatives. The wrong way is for an unelected judge with a lifetime appointment to tell the people "You're wrong" and rewrite the law to suit his/her own idealogical principals.

Problem is, in Kentucky, the law says the woman is the one who must apply for the license. Until such time as the legislature reconvenes, how exactly is she supposed to "follow the law" if 2 men are seeking a marriage license? Pretty much all of Kentucky's marriage laws are going to require amending in order to comply with the illegitimate court opinion...so for her to cease issuing ANY marriage licenses until such time as the law is changed to set the guidelines for issuing licenses under these new circumstances only makes sense. And she's not necessarily pushing her beliefs on others. Nothing is preventing those wishing to receive a license from crossing over to the next county and getting their license...just like nothing would have prevented the gay couple in Colorado from going down the street to another baker or the gay couple in Washington from going around the corner to another florist. Just because 1 person doesn't feel right doing something they don't agree with doesn't give the other the right to force them to comply. Take the BS over the Confederate Flag, for example. If a store owner finds it offensive, they have the right to not offer them for sale...and I have the right to not patronize their establishment and instead go next door to their competitor who is more than willing to sell me what I want. Just because the first vendor sells every flag under the sun EXCEPT the one I'm looking to buy doesn't give me the right to sue them and force that proprietor to sell me an item he finds offensive. So a cake baker doesn't agree with same-sex marriage...find a baker who does. If a florist doesn't want to decorate your gay wedding, find one that will. If a clerk can't in good conscience place her signature on a same-sex marriage license, go find one that will. It really isn't all that difficult, and no reason to raise a big stink over the matter. Nobody should have to "check their religion at the door" at ANY job, whether it is a government job or not. I don't stop being a Christian the moment I walk out of church, just as I don't stop being an American when I walk in. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof. That is pretty clear, that the law cannot force you to violate your religious beliefs...and we aren't talking some off-the-wall bat-shit-crazy cult that wants to slaughter chickens and bathe in the blood. Christianity is a pretty main-stream religion that has been around a couple thousand years, and the teachings haven't changed in that time...only society has. The fact that religious people, whether they've been life-long believers or recently born-again, believe same-sex marriage is wrong and desire to have no part of it comes as no surprise. The first settlers to come here from Europe came here for religious liberty...and now a person sits in jail because of her beliefs, and to me that's just sad.

I try whenever possible to make my point without invoking God's name, because while I try to live according to His Word, I know I'm not perfect and don't claim to speak for Him. On policy issues, while religion may play a role in forming the opinions or the morality on which these decisions are made, not everybody shares the same religion. We do (allegedly) have religious liberty in this country, and as such, one religion should not dictate how others must live. If you can't make a valid point to justify your position without playing the "God says so" card, while it may be a perfectly legitimate view in your own personal life, it is not good public policy. I've laid out the ways society benefits from traditional marriage, as well as pointing out some burdens placed upon society by allowing same sex marriage. NOBODY has put forth any ways in which society benefits from a same sex marriage. Those arguing the loudest for their "right" to marry are selfish, thinking only how the recognition benefits them personally without taking into consideration the burdens they seek to place upon society. They seek validation of an unnatural relationship, because they "love" their partner. Marriage ain't about love, though. It is about making a life-long commitment for better or worse in order to provide a stable foundation upon which to raise a family. So for those in support of allowing same sex unions to be recognized as marriage, can you name a way in which such unions benefit society?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/04/christian-intimidation-kentucky-judge-does-with-gavel-what-bull-connor-did-with-dogs-and-fire-hoses.html

Most states have laws on the books prohibiting modifications made to the exhaust system which makes it louder than it was when it came from the manufacturer. So no, you DON'T have to like the guy riding around with the loud exhaust. In fact, if you complain and the cops catch him, or if a cop who cares hears him drive by, he can receive a ticket for that loud exhaust and pay a fine. If you don't want someone chewing and spitting in your shop, you have the right to remove them from your shop. The Constitution places no marital status requisite upon the office of the president, nor does it say anything about sexual preference, so it really doesn't matter as long as they are elected to the office. Hell, even if there WERE Constitutional requirements, we've seen in recent years that they don't really matter much as long as you claim to meet them and refuse to release any actual documentation that would prove or disprove your claim. What bothers me is when a person is locked up because they cannot in good conscience place their signature upon a marriage license thereby endorsing the union. What bothers me is when a baker or florist is forced to close up shop for refusing to use their talents to participate in (thereby endorsing) an event which violates their religious beliefs. What bothers me is when a property owner who makes the property available as a venue for events gets sued when refusing to allow an event on the property (endorsing the event) which violates their religious beliefs.

Biologically, man + woman are required to create a child. Would you be in favor of the state requiring fertility tests of all heterosexual couples prior to a marriage license being issued? That would never fly, as it is a HUGE invasion of privacy. That test is not necessary in the matter of a same-sex couple as there is no natural biological way for that couple to create a child. Even in "infertile" individuals, things happen and pregnancy ensues. Birth control (condoms, the pill, and even surgical methods), for example, never claims to be 100% effective, because there is ALWAYS a possibility (no matter how slim) that man + woman = baby. Same-sex couples do not have that issue because there is no possible way for a man + man or woman + woman to have a child together inside of the union. If an "infertile" heterosexual couple desires a child, they can take hormone supplements and other medications to increase their chances of conceiving a child, created with the man's sperm and the woman's egg...a child created inside of the union. If a same-sex couple desires a child, there is no possible way for a sperm + sperm, or for an egg + egg to create a child. They NEED assistance from OUTSIDE of the union, be it a surrogate mother or a sperm donor, in order to concieve the child they desire. Their union by itself will never (as in 100% guaranteed) produce a child by itself.

I don't care what another person does with their life...just don't tell me that I have to endorse their behavior if I don't agree with it. Marriage is an important institution, providing a stable home with a mother and father to raise their offspring. It shouldn't be easy to get away from...divorce is FAR to easy when couples hit a rough patch. Marriage is intended to provide security for the family. Gay couples cannot bear children inside of the relationship, so the societal benefit of recognizing the union simply isn't there. Instead, society is burdened with another non-working dependent eligible to receive benefits despite not having a legitimate reason (such as child rearing) for their unemployment. You have employers now forced to provide health insurance coverage for the "partner" despite the fact that there is no good reason why that "partner" isn't working their own job. Children raised in a home with a mother and a father are less likely to become wards of the state, more financially stable, and generally better adjusted for life than children raised in any other situation. You can't dodge the fact that traditional marriage has always been acknowleged throughout the ages because it is beneficial to society, where same sex unions have not been recognized because they serve no useful purpose to society, but rather create burdens paid for by others in that society. Marriage isn't about love, and the many cultures practicing arranged marriages prove this as they tend to have lower divorce rates. It is a partnership, where a man and woman come together to raise a family.

I don't mind them walking around holding hands or even kissing. Hell, I do that with my wife as often as she'll let me. If somebody doesn't want to see it, they are free to look the other way. That is "tolerance" so often spoken about but never actually practiced by the left. What the left instead decides to do, is say that it isn't enough to avert your eyes with a "live and let live" attitude. No, they seek to force you to not only watch, but also to participate in the behavior you don't necessarily care to witness. If you attempt to say "No" to their requests for your participation, they call you a racist/biggot/homophobe/etc... in order to shame you into complying with their demands. What ever happened to "tolerance"? My tolerance for their activities led them to push for my actions in support of behavior which I don't agree with. They don't have "tolerance" for MY beliefs...so why should I give a rats rear end about what they want? I'll avert my eyes and allow you to love whomever you choose to love. Don't call it "marriage", though, because it's not. Don't ask me to participate, because I won't.

I forgot I was on my computer and the "quote" feature actually works here.... The people have been exercising their power over the government since the people created it. Jury nullification is one way we do it. When the state prosecutes a person for breaking a ridiculous law, the people on the jury have the power to say "Yes, you broke the law....but the law is stupid" and acquit, allowing the person to go free. This clerk ought to be seeking a jury trial (as is her right under Article 3 Section 2) over the contempt charges and push for just that. Let the jury of her peers tell the judge he's got no lawful authority to lock her up over her refusal to comply with an illegitimate court order. Worst case scenario, it winds up as a hung jury and push for a retrial. It will be a collassal waste of the courts time and resources to continually bring her back...and in the process, she gets to be in court instead of a jail cell during the proceedings. I see no reason why she shouldn't make it as costly for the government as the government is trying to make it for her. Then when she wins? Sue the pants off the judge for violating her civil rights....1st amendment free exercise of religion....5th amendment due process.....8th amendment excessive bail. What has this country become when a judge can imprison a citizen for inaction, when that action would go against that citizen's religious beliefs? This judge should have to answer for his unconstitutional action, and it should cost him dearly.

That isn't a good comparison at all. First of all, the right to keep and bear arms IS in the Constitution in plain english for anyone to read. The word "marriage" never appears there. Second, a person's belief on guns is irrelevant to whether or not they should be able to get married. A better comparisson would be a religiously anti-gun person being forced to issue gun permits. However, that STILL isn't a valid comparisson because gun permits in most places run through law enforcement....state police, sheriffs, etc....and those folks generally carry weapons of their own. How "religiously anti-gun" can a person be who has a gun strapped to their own hip? Not only that, but marriage has been an institution since civilization began. NEVER (until recently...as in within MY relatively short lifetime) has the idea of a same sex union been considered marriage. Religions all over the world recognize marriage as a union between man and woman. Sure, for some it is a union between man and women...and perhaps you might even find a few where it is between woman and men....but NOWHERE until the past few years has it been man and man or woman and woman. Why is that? Marriage isn't about "love". Hell, many societies the betrothed aren't even introduced to each other until the wedding ceremony because the parents arrange the marriage for them. It is about biology and procreation. Man + woman = baby. She stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether so that she would NOT be discriminating against homosexuals. Couples wishing to get married are perfectly capable of driving to the next county and getting their license. I drove 3 states away to get mine, so I really don't see what the big deal is other than the other side showing their own intolerance. They claim they want tolerance for their behavior, but what they are demanding goes far beyond tolerating it. They are insisting that we approve, accept, and even participate in it. There were other cake shops....but they wouldn't go elsewhere. That baker wouldn't participate in their wedding so they shut them down. Many florists are gay, and would be more than happy to provide flowers for a gay wedding. Did that couple seek out one of those florists? No, they went to the Christian florist and had the state shut her down when she refused to participate in their wedding. Venues. Officiants. Now county clerks. This is an extremely small yet vocal group aggressively demanding people participate in something which violates their conscience or suffer the consequenses. What ever happened to "live and let live"? If a person says "I can't do that", simply take your business elsewhere. Why would you want to give your money to a person/business that does not agree with something so important to you anyway? Hell, I quit drinking Budweiser when A/B sold out to the foreigners, because if I'm going to drink beer I want to drink an American beer. It wasn't really all that difficult to do, and I'm drinking MUCH better beer these days when I do crack one open. They'll get a much better cake, a prettier floral arrangement, etc...if they go to someone who will have their heart in it when they do the work....so why FORCE somebody to do it against their will? What's the point? It isn't about tolerance at all. I don't care what a person does in the privacy of their own bedroom, or who they choose to share their bedroom with. Just don't ask me to participate or in any other way give my blessing to what you are doing if it is something I don't agree with because I won't. I can tolerate your lifestylebecause it does not affect me, but I will not participate in it.

Whenever public policy is proposed, 2 questions need to be answered. 1) Does the government have the power to act? 2) Does this action promote Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? If the government has no power to act, the 2nd question is irrelevant. Religion should never play a role in making government policies, however religion is absolutely a legitimate reason for individuals to decline following them. . Congress is tasked with making laws, NOT the judiciary. When the judiciary decides to overstep their powers and write laws (as they have in this case), the same applies to them. A law which forces an individual to make a choice between obeying the law or obeying their God simply is not Constitutional. Homosexual acts have ALWAYS been frowned upon by the Christian church (as with many other faiths). That hasn't changed. Nobody is saying that homosexuals cannot have their relationships and live in accordance to whatever makes them happy. Society has made it clear, though, that marriage is a union of 1 man and 1 woman. If you want to get married, find somebody of the opposite sex and walk them down the aisle. There is no societal benefit to allowing same-sex marriages, and when allowing these same-sex marriages FORCES those who disagree with them to participate (whether that participation is issuing the license, performing the ceremony, providing the venue, baking the cake or catering the meal, making the floral arrangements, etc.) then the law is in violation of the Constitution. Liberty is the ability to say "no" when asked to violate your conscience...and this country should NEVER imprison somebody over doing just that.

The problem I have with the whole big bang theory, is where did "stuff" come from? The law of conservation of matter states that in a closed system, matter cannot be created nor destroyed...and the universe is just a really big closed system, whether we are able to comprehend its boundaries or not. So where did matter come from? Enough matter and energy had to exist in order for there to be anything to go "bang". Where did it come from? Marriage for the entire history of mankind has recognized the complimentary nature of man and woman. ONLY in this union can procreation exist. Sure, these days a woman can be impregnated with a turkey baster in a lab...but the special sauce still came from a man whether or not he was directly involved in the process. Outside of "divine intervention", it takes a man and a woman to create a child. 2 women cannot by themselves create a child, nor can 2 men. Only 1 man and 1 woman together. It is also a fact that children generally turn out better prepared for life if they were raised in a home with both a mother and a father. Sure, there are some exceptions...some well-adjusted kids raised by a single mother, or a single father, or some other arrangement, just as there are some seriously screwed up individuals raised by a mother & father...but generally speaking, kids do better when raised in a stable household with a mother and father. Marriage encourages commitment by those who would bring new life into this world, so that kids grow up with both their mother and father in the home. Without the ability to procreate, where is the societal benefit for allowing same-sex marriage? In a relationship which cannot create new life, society sees no benefit from the longevity and durability of the relationship, nor is society burdened if the relationship falls apart. Society does not gain anything by recognizing such unions. In fact, it could be argued that recognizing same-sex marriage is actually detrimental to society. You have 2 people in a relationship, which cannot create a child inside of that relationship. Without a child (or even the possibility of a child) resulting from the union, there is no reason why both individuals cannot work, and no reason an employer should have to pay for the non-working partner's insurance. Spouses and dependents have historically been offered coverage because traditionally the spouse stays home with the child. No child means no reason for the spouse to stay home and not work. This non-working spouse has traditionally been allowed to collect retirement benefits paid for by the working spouse, because the non-working spouse worked at home raising the children. Again, without the potential for children in the relationship, the need for this safety net in case the non-working spouse outlived the working spouse becomes unnecessary because there is no reason for not working because there was never a possibility for children inside of the relationship. In the case of Social Security and Medicare, this recognition of same-sex marriages adds to the number of people getting paid without adding extra workers. These programs are already broke...so this recognition of same-sex marriage isn't helping matters any. There is no benefit to society recognizing same-sex marriage...only societal burdens created. Refusing to recognize it benefits society, and only inconveniences the extremely small number of individuals directly affected.

We the people elected a congress which passed the defense of marriage act. We the people also elected a president which signed the defense of marriage act into law. We the people also put the measure up as a ballot initiative in 32 states. It passed in 31 of them. The people have spoken repeatedly on this issue, and overwhelmingly made it clear that the desire of the people was for marriage to be one man and one woman...nothing more, and nothing less. It is a matter which the people, through BOTH their elected representatives in the legislative and executive branches AS WELL AS directly with their votes on these state constitutional amendments, removed any consent the government may have thought it had. The judicial branch acted outside the scope of their powers, and now instead of a citizen being a productive member of society her liberty has been stripped. She is now a burden to taxpayers as she is provided room and board at the gray bar motel. They ought to deduct what it costs to house and feed her from that judge's paycheck. Personally, I'd sit there in defiance for as long as it took...making sure the media was well aware of just how much this judge was costing taxpayers trying to force me to comply with an illegitimate court's ruling. I have nothing but time, and the more stuff I lose as a result of being locked up over BS, the less reason I have to change my mind and begin violating my conscience by obeying an illegitimate court opinion.

We have ALWAYS held the power in this country. Whether or not there have been enough people with the balls to stand up to the government vs. lemmings who blindly follow what their government tells them to do is another story. The government-run education system has done a marvelous job convincing folks like you that the government is in charge and that we the people are helpless without them, whichever alphabet-soup agency happens to claim oversight on a matter. This is a recent change...just in the last 100 years or so that people quit relying upon themselves and common sense to figure things out and instead turned to the government to look after them...and the trend seems to have a snowball effect. The more people allow the government to control, the more the government tries to control. When does it stop? Idiocracy seems to be a glimpse into the future if people won't get their heads out of their rear ends and start thinking for themselves and taking responsibility for their own life. The Constitution begins "WE THE PEOPLE...(snip)...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". It was "WE THE PEOPLE", not a king, not a tyrant, not a dictator. The people created government...NOT the other way around...and as my daddy used to say, "I brought you into this world, I can take you out of it and make another just like you". .

She is. She was elected during the time Kentucky did not allow gay marriages. I don't know how long she's held that job, but the Marriage Amendment passed in November 2004. If she had a Religious (or any other) problem with issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, it WOULD NOT have been a problem until just a few months ago when the courts ruled on a matter which they had no jurisdiction because the people (the governed) had made it clear the government simply lacks the power (derived by the consent of the governed) to define "marriage" as anything other than the union of 1 man and 1 woman. It isn't as though she ran for the office knowing she would be asked to do this...it was forced upon her (and every other county clerk, justice of the peace, cake bakers, florists, venue owners, as well as anyone else in the "wedding industry") after the fact by activist courts kowtowing to an EXTREMELY SMALL minority of people. CDC places the gay population at 2.3% ( http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/07/15/study-nation-s-percentage-of-gays-less-than-supposed/)...and even inside of that small percentage, support for same-sex "marriage" isn't 100%. The court overstepped, and it should be the duty of ALL government employees to honor what the people have told them to do over the "decision" of a handful of activists in black robes. We live in a country where the people granted certain specific powers to the government, and have also placed limits upon the government exercising those powers. We the people have the power, when sitting on a jury, to say "Yeah, he broke the law...but the law is stupid!" and acquit...Jury nullification. We the people can do that because we the people are the ones who hold the REAL power in this country. The government TRIES to convince you otherwise, and it is the duty of everybody to stand up and say "NO!" when the government oversteps.

While I'm not much a fan of infidelity, divorce, or gay marriage, my support stems more from the fact that the courts have blatantly overstepped the power granted to the government by the people. When the people stand up and say "YOU DON'T HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO THAT!" and the government thumbs their nose and says "try and stop us!", then SOMEBODY needs to stand up and resist. 31 states passed amendments to their state constitutions defining "marriage" as the union between 1 man and 1 woman...effectively telling the government that "We the people...the governed...DO NOT consent to any other definition of 'marriage'." On the federal level, the Defense of Marriage Act was also on the books, where the people (through their representatives) made it known that "marriage" was the union of 1 man and 1 woman. The courts simply do not have the power to act without consent of the governed, since the consent of the governed is where the government derives it's power. Without consent from the governed, government is powerless. I don't care if the issue at hand is gay "marriage" being mandated by the courts, or Obamacare being pushed through using legislative tricks, or burdensome regulations. If the government is acting without the consent of the governed, the actions are illigitimate and NEED to be resisted by the people. I'll stand behind anyone resisting an illegitimate government action. Hell, maybe she just found God a few years ago after seeing how screwed up her life was, repented for her sins, and is trying to live in accordance with her new-found faith? Who knows...not my place to judge. I'm just standing with a person who is resisting an overstep by the government.

I wish more elected officials had the balls to stand up for their beliefs. Contact info for her is on the county clerk's Web page...

Happens here, too...but when exits are 5-10 miles apart, it limits opportunity for that dumbass maneuver. I TRY to avoid the big road when I can, but sometimes it is inevitable I'll have to run it.

...and people wonder why I LOVE roads like this: I would be happy if I never had to drive on a road bigger than that.

...or the "don't bother looking before running a red light" right turner...