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

[RowdyRebel]

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.

[GreenGiant2]

An invisible man in the sky dosent have the say- Mother Nature will- as she has done sence the Big Bang- decide the fate of the earth and the creatures on it. Religion was developed to control the mases and our government borrowed from religion during its formation. I for one am not looking to control other people and there private lives. Life is to dam short on this planet and I can't see why someone should suffer because of someone else's beliefs regardless of where there beliefs come from. So what if the parts don't fit, is much more than sex, it's about all the things that make life special and enjoyable. No person or law should ever deprive anyone of happiness or equality. Mabey if more people were happy in this world some of the bad would go away.

what in the world are you talking about my friend.

[masterwelder]

Sorry to hear of your liberal athiest beliefs,maybe someday you will see the light?

My point exactly. Label me as a liberal and an atheist. I don't belong to any group, religion or organization. I can think for myself. If what I believe coinsides with a group, religion or orginization it's purely a coincidence. I don't care what you or anyone else dose and you shouldn't medel in others business. If you want to spend the rest of you life with a watermelon what gives me the right to judge you or tell you how to live your life?

Controlling others is largely to blame for the mess were in present day- all over the world. Religion is responsible for more death and destruction than everything else combined.

Must be my generation (gen X). I don't think most of us are god fearin, gay bashing, pro lifers and close minded. We were much more exposed to it growing up. We can think for ourselves. We don't need a book to tell us how to live. We see life as it is and live in the moment. Life is to short.

[RowdyRebel]

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 shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

. 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.

[Mack458]

This woman has every right to deny issuing licenses, but that is her job. She is not in trouble for just not issuing licenses to gays, but everyone. She is paid, just like all of us, to perform a task to the best of her ability. If I don't do my job I get fired. She needs to look for another line of work that will respect her values and move on. As many of you have said in one way or the other, it's not my business who does what, unless it affects me. I respect her right to speak her mind, but I do not respect her denying other peoples rights.

[41chevy]

Gay marriage, medical marijauna, recreational marijauna, immigration... the list goes on and on of laws that are supposed to be decided state by state. Truth is, no they aren't.

There are two basic levels in the U.S legal system: Federal law and State law. A federal law applies to the nation as a whole and to all 50 states whereas state laws are only in effect within that particular state.

If a State law gives people more rights than a Federal law, the State law is legally supposed to prevail. This means State law will always supersede Federal law when the person in question stands to gain more from the state law, right?

Wrong. The law that applies to situations where State and Federal laws disagree is called the Supremacy Clause, which is part of Article VI of the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause contains what's known as the Doctrine of Pre-emption, which says that the Federal Government wins in the case of conflicting legislation. Basically, if a Federal and State law contradict, then when you're in the state, you can follow the state law, but the Feds can decide to stop you. When there is a conflict between a State law and Federal law, the Federal law that prevails. For example, if a Federal regulation allows same sex marriage, but a States regulation prohibits it, the Federal law prevails.

[BOB DINGSDALE]

you guys sure are having your troubles in the U S .Too bad OBIMBO doesn't follew the laws of the land

[Dieseldriver65]

My point exactly. Label me as a liberal and an atheist. I don't belong to any group, religion or organization. I can think for myself. If what I believe coinsides with a group, religion or orginization it's purely a coincidence. I don't care what you or anyone else dose and you shouldn't medel in others business. If you want to spend the rest of you life with a watermelon what gives me the right to judge you or tell you how to live your life?

Controlling others is largely to blame for the mess were in present day- all over the world. Religion is responsible for more death and destruction than everything else combined.

Must be my generation (gen X). I don't think most of us are god fearin, gay bashing, pro lifers and close minded. We were much more exposed to it growing up. We can think for ourselves. We don't need a book to tell us how to live. We see life as it is and live in the moment. Life is to short.

Just a fact of who you seem to be,not a label.As for your generation ''X'' being more like that,i'd say that has more to do with your location than anything.Have you ventured out of the Northeast?There's still quite a few of the younger generations being raised right and having the good traditional values this country was founded on.Within a few years I'll be headed South out of this overpriced liberal infested area

[Bigdogtrucker]

Just a fact of who you seem to be,not a label.As for your generation ''X'' being more like that,i'd say that has more to do with your location than anything.Have you ventured out of the Northeast?There's still quite a few of the younger generations being raised right and having the good traditional values this country was founded on.Within a few years I'll be headed South out of this overpriced liberal infested area

I hear ya, I couldn't stand it up there anymore...Plenty of good people, but FAR outnumbered by the libtards! Come on down to GA DD65

[Dirtymilkman]

I agree with Sivart. Labels in this society is a problem. I'm not prolife but I wanna end welfare, I want the immigrants to go but I dont think weed should be a criminal offence. The problem with government is everyone is one side or the other. No in between. No reasoning.

[kscarbel2]

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". .

Actually, the "people" (ie. the masses) had nothing at all to do with the creation of our government............rather, it was created by the ruling aristocracy of the thirteen (English) colonies. And they ensured that power would remain tightly in their hands.

When the people stand up to the government and take control for the first time, be sure to post an FYI on that here at BMT.

[Green Dash]

i do not see anything to indicate that Ms Davis is protesting how the law came to be, only her opposition to same sex marriage. She is not being asked to live or even approve of the lifestyle or officiate at a wedding ceremony. She doesn't even have to smile or wish the couple good luck. However, she does not have the luxury to pick and choose which residents of Kentucky she wants to serve. What next, maybe a clerk who is anti-gun will stop issuing licenses because it is against their religious beliefs for YOU to have a gun? The fact that this involves homosexuals seems to be clouding the real issue.

[RowdyRebel]

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.

[RowdyRebel]

Actually, the "people" (ie. the masses) had nothing at all to do with the creation of our government............rather, it was created by the ruling aristocracy of the thirteen (English) colonies. And they ensured that power would remain tightly in their hands.

When the people stand up to the government and take control for the first time, be sure to post an FYI on that here at BMT.

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.

[theakerstwo]

Hillary should be doing time in a federal prison but no a woman that is trying to save her soul and country has to go to jail.Every thing is upside down now.I still remember when a good true fag would hide be hind something to play with his boy friend but now they want to be out front even in front of children and most of all God.

[Dieseldriver65]

Hillary should be doing time in a federal prison but no a woman that is trying to save her soul and country has to go to jail.Every thing is upside down now.I still remember when a good true fag would hide be hind something to play with his boy friend but now they want to be out front even in front of children and most of all God.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Can't have a trucking industry without gay folks... Now get over it, homophobes!

[RSD501]

Just a fact of who you seem to be,not a label.As for your generation ''X'' being more like that,i'd say that has more to do with your location than anything.Have you ventured out of the Northeast?There's still quite a few of the younger generations being raised right and having the good traditional values this country was founded on.Within a few years I'll be headed South out of this overpriced liberal infested area

Good traditional values include judging others for who they choose to marry? Close-mindedness is a good traditional value? I raise my 2 kids to treat everybody as they wish to be treated, and to be open mineded and willing to try to understand other peoples motivations and backgrounds. They have been to the dirt track, drag races, and can help grease trucks and ride dirt bikes. They also have been to pride parade and key west and have never had a bad thing to say about. Kids are open minded and kind, and I would like to keep them that way. Your idea of being raised "right" and mine are very different. But you are free to do as you wish, just as two men or two women that love each other should be free to do so.

[RowdyRebel]

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.

[Dirtymilkman]

Who cares and why would you care if gay people can get married? RSD501 is right.

[masterwelder]

Who cares and why would you care if gay people can get married? RSD501 is right.

A- control over an other or others

B- jealousy

C- ignorance/ uninformed

D- fear

E- all of the above

With all due respect, times are changing like it or not. That's evolution. Get on or get out of the way.

[TeamsterGrrrl]

Old Macks are worth preserving, bigoted "values" are not.

[Dieseldriver65]

Can't have a trucking industry without gay folks... Now get over it, homophobes!

No phobia of anything,just don't like or approve of that lifestyle.Sick of being told I have to accept it,I need to accept shit if I don't want to plain and simple.Glod bless America

[david wild]

If being GAY is not learned behavior and it is truly the way you are wired than the BLACKS acting the way they do is also then a born in behavior ???? why is it that GAYS act the same all over the world and the BLACKS act the same way yet have never met each other or seen how the other acts. Cats and Dogs act the same all over the world, Sooooo if it is born in behavior than how can most blacks be equal if they cannot act like a normal human, their actions along with the gays is abnormal behavior. All I want is the Gays and Blacks to admit is they are abnormal, keep their crap in the closet and let the normal people enjoy life without being subjected to their behavior. another words don't expect to be treated like a human when you cannot act like one.

[Dieseldriver65]

Well said MR.Wild!