My email to Kim Davis (that KY county clerk in the news)

[Green Dash]

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....

Insert whatever document you wish in place of my erroneous example of a gun permit. She was elected to to a job and failed at it. That is not acceptable in this situation.

Once again this discussion has drifted away from why she was held in contempt to what everyone's opinion is of homosexuality and gay marriage. If Ms Davis wants to take this a step further she could wear one of those medical id bracelets and perhaps post a sign at her home stating that she refuses any type of assistance from Police Officers, Firefighters EMT's, Doctors, Blood Donors, Organ Donors, etc that are part of the LGBT community. This way she can express her feelings without disrupting the lives of others.

[RedBullDog]

I'm kinda surprised by strong reactions on both sides of the issue. I have friends and family that are homosexual, I have never said a cross thing to them or about them because of their lifestyle. But, at the same time, they are not "out there" or over the top acting people, and not one of them has mentioned an interest in their version of marriage. Tolerance is one thing, subservience to their sin is another. My Lord doesn't call on me to personally judge them or condemn them. I hate what militant factions of all these minority groups are attempting to do to our country. I cannot understand why the vast majority in these minority groups allow themselves to be represented by extremists. Not all gays want their choices to be crammed down our throat. (sorry, phrasing) I don't know a single black guy or gal that has wanted to riot or act up because of the things going on around the country. They really don't wish to stand out in any way from the neighbors or community. There are many instances in life that test my faith and values, but I hold on to the belief that we all eventually will answer for our own lives and how we lived them.

[Job41]

If she is a Christ-follower, then she has herself in a position of being faced with two conflicting rules. Scripture tells of obeying government rule but also tells of homosexuality being a sinful act. She should take the route that other clerks who are believers have taken, and that is to resign from the job. I realize she wants to make a statement, but there are other ways of doing so.

[RedBullDog]

If she is a Christ-follower, then she has herself in a position of being faced with two conflicting rules. Scripture tells of obeying government rule but also tells of homosexuality being a sinful act. She should take the route that other clerks who are believers have taken, and that is to resign from the job. I realize she wants to make a statement, but there are other ways of doing so.

Her skills could shine in a position at her local DMV.

[other dog]

.

[Job41]

One of the things that Jesus offers to a fallen world: Forgiveness for those who repent and call upon his name. Acts 13:38-39 " Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses." NIV

[kscarbel2]

.A11953165_456077664575059_4409080363682718171_n.jpg

It is intriguing that this woman, with a proven gross inability to manage her own life, is garnering so much support from some people here for her refusal to do her job and simultaneously attempt to dictate how others live their lives.

This thread began with someone stating that they were writing in support of this woman's efforts to live in accordance with your beliefs. And what beliefs she has..........she's been married 4 times and committed adultery with her third husband while married to her first.......what a bible thumping hypocrite. And she wants to impose her religious beliefs on others?.........what a crock. This mess of a person is representative of what is wrong with the fabric of America today.

Obviously, this individual's actions are based on her personal desire to bask for a time in the media spotlight. There's nothing more to it.

[RowdyRebel]

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.

[Bigdogtrucker]

Great explanation Rowdy

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Then why do we allow heterosexual couples who are incapable of creating children to marry?

[Dirtymilkman]

You don't have to "endorse" homosexuals or black people. We just should respect their point of views too. The only gays you see or hear about are the extremists, same with islams and so on and so on. Some guys drive around with loud exhaust, are we all supposed to like that? Or if I dont want someone chewing and spitting in my shop am I wrong? We've had queer presidents for christs sake. If this kind of thing bothers people, then you either dont have enough work to do or have enough of your own problems. I wish there were way more gay men. It just makes my odds better for picking up ladies.

[mowerman]

typical US bullshit,,,these days,,,the christian does time,,,,and the queers get a license to marry,,,,like wow man.lol.bob

[RowdyRebel]

Then why do we allow heterosexual couples who are incapable of creating children to marry?

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.

[RowdyRebel]

You don't have to "endorse" homosexuals or black people. We just should respect their point of views too. The only gays you see or hear about are the extremists, same with islams and so on and so on. Some guys drive around with loud exhaust, are we all supposed to like that? Or if I dont want someone chewing and spitting in my shop am I wrong? We've had queer presidents for christs sake. If this kind of thing bothers people, then you either dont have enough work to do or have enough of your own problems. I wish there were way more gay men. It just makes my odds better for picking up ladies.

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.

[RowdyRebel]

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

But what law – what specific law – did Mrs. Davis violate? Where is the law that mandates Mrs. Davis issue a marriage license?

That’s a question Republican presidential candidate former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee raised to his supporters in a recent letter.

“That simple question is giving many in Congress a civics lesson that they never got in grade school,” Huckabee wrote.

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

However, there used to be a federal law on the books called the Defense of Marriage Act. And President Obama directed his administration to ignore the law. I don’t seem to recall a federal judge throwing the president in the slammer.

[HeavyGunner]

I'm not really religious or atheist, yes I'm a fence rider but NEITHER side can conclusively prove they are right. I think gays should be able to marry whether that's aligned with my views or not. The only thing I would like to see is for them to call it anything else but marriage just because I don't like how our society keeps redefining words. Traditionally marriage is between a man and woman in my eyes and not from a religous stand point on my end so make a new word up for same sex marriage is all I ask. As far as people quoting the bible and why people are going to hell basically don't they remember reading that (I'm paraphrasing here) that a sin is a sin in gods eyes meaning all sins are equal? IF you go by that it means lots of people are going to hell for lots of different things but homosexuality is the latest thing to protest. Don't we see churches and groups working in prisons? Not protesting out in front of them because of all the sinners in there? Just realize when you protest someone's personal life that no way effects you, you're personal life choices could be on the chopping block next. As for the minority's groups that cry bigot, racist etc for some one disagreeing with them I have a saying for that, Those who preach tolerance have the least of it for someone with an opposing view.

[RowdyRebel]

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?

[slpwlker]

Call me an atheist, Libby what ever. Separation of church and state is still there. Weather the law changed while she was in office or not she is still an elected offical. There for once she hits the door religion is at the front door till closing. What right does she have to push her belief on others. While I may not agree with gay unions, I do have friends or know people that are. They don't push on me and I them. Very touchy subject either way

[Dirtymilkman]

There are gay couples that adopt unwanted children. Children that could've been aborted but weren't because of religious beliefs. I would bet there are gay couples that are better parents then straight couples. So yes, life long commitment, stable family......sounds better than most white trash living in their trailer, smoking while knocked up and not caring.for their own kids over themselves. So are you the kind of person that is mad they abolished slavery? The feds made that rule, or should the southern states allow it yet because they wanted it?

[theakerstwo]

Gay life stye is still against Gods word but if you don't care for Gods word you have that choice

[Bobby j]

I wish I could wake up from this horrible nightmare that seems to be coming the norm for America .......but everyday I see it ain't no dream.......scares me........I can only think of three words.....SODAM AND GOMARAH.........Bobby j.

[RowdyRebel]

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.

[RowdyRebel]

There are gay couples that adopt unwanted children. Children that could've been aborted but weren't because of religious beliefs. I would bet there are gay couples that are better parents then straight couples. So yes, life long commitment, stable family......sounds better than most white trash living in their trailer, smoking while knocked up and not caring.for their own kids over themselves. So are you the kind of person that is mad they abolished slavery? The feds made that rule, or should the southern states allow it yet because they wanted it?

^^^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:

Constitution of the Confederate States of America

Article 1. - The Legislative Branch

Section 9 - Limits on Congress, Bill of Rights

1. The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

2. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

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.

[kscarbel2]

^^^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 un-elected judge with a lifetime appointment to tell the people "You're wrong" and rewrite the law to suit his/her own ideological principals.

BMT, the world's leading website on Mack Trucks and the truck industry as a whole, is a platform for the healthy exchange of thoughts and ideas.

Friend, you are welcome to express your thoughts and opinions here. The BMT family, some of the finest people in the world, are friendly, open-minded and outgoing.

However, it is inappropriate, inconsiderate and disrespectful of you to ridicule another individual here for their thought process simply because it differs from your own.

Your "perception" of the truth, which is nothing more than an opinion, isn't necessarily the opinion of others.

Every single person in the world is different in mind and spirit (the world would be a dull place if we were all the same). People here have respected your thoughts, and you must respect theirs.

[other dog]

Well, much like HeavyGunner said- there's an old saying "love the sinner, hate the sin". I don't know if that's in the Bible or not, but I do know the Bible says "There is none who is without sin, no, not one, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."