It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kentucky: Oath Keepers Say They Will Protect Kim Davis From The Law

page: 13
69
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: thinline
All the people saying, the law is the law, do you really mean it or are you trying to just get some moral high ground but in reality you are just full of *ATS EDIT*?

Did the federal law for harboring illegal aliens change? There are a ton of politicians harboring illegals, and ironically they- like Kim Davis- are Democrats.

Mathematically speaking, there should be around 500 gay people and about 10,000 single straight people(of all age) in Rowan County. How many couples(since she was not providing licenses to anyone) did not get a license from Rowan county? Do you think that number is higher or lower then people that were killed, raped, or physically injured by an illegal alien in that same time period?

I am supposed to take it, that people are really all butthurt that a county clerk isn't following the law by issuing marriage certificates to anyone in that county but those same people are ok when presidents, governors, mayors, and so on, don't follow federal laws and people get killed, raped, or physically injured.






You have a point but it doesnt make any of it right. At least this one thing has support. There isnt enough money in repressing gays. Now I come from Texas a very conservative state they talk tough about illegals but love them on their construction crews, land scaping, farming, cleaning etc..all they have to do is make people varify workers and they dont so its both sides. One wants votes another cheap workers with no rights.




posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Martin75

(Thank you! Helped me to see the code is the same whether it's on youtube or not.
Got it.


Back On Topic: )

I find it quite menacing, and really disturbing.....

which provides a nice segue to one of my standard contributions to the Evangelical Nonsense that is out there:






edit on 9/11/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: undo

Really good argument and good point. It would be nice for someone to explain that to her. I know how many Christians see things like this. I don't agree with them, but I used to have many of the same perceptions, so I get it.

So, why don't you call her and have a little talk?
Bring peace to this stressful situation?



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

right and if it's not divinely ordained, she's simply signing a legal document the same as if a gay guy came in to buy a property from another gay guy. you don't stop to ask them if they prayed about it first to be sure it was the right move for them financially before you sign the document as you assume it's their own business. that's what a marriage license is in the usa. it's not a divine agreement, it's a legal document, very secular in nature. the divine part already transpired when they fell in love.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: luthier

right and if it's not divinely ordained, she's simply signing a legal document the same as if a gay guy came in to buy a property from another gay guy. you don't stop to ask them if they prayed about it first to be sure it was the right move for them financially before you sign the document as you assume it's their own business. that's what a marriage license is in the usa. it's not a divine agreement, it's a legal document, very secular in nature. the divine part already transpired when they fell in love.


Excellent. Well done. I get too caught up in the legal side but their are two sides and your staying level enough to relate to both.

edit on 11-9-2015 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: undo

Really good argument and good point. It would be nice for someone to explain that to her. I know how many Christians see things like this. I don't agree with them, but I used to have many of the same perceptions, so I get it.

So, why don't you call her and have a little talk?
Bring peace to this stressful situation?


maybe it'll get back to her via the internet.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75
If there is no female involved in the marriage, then she is breaking the law by issuing the license. Am I reading that wrong?


You read it right, but the Supreme Court ruling would have invalidated that part of Kentucky law, along with any other parts that would indicate that marriage was ONLY between a man and a woman.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

Immediately after reading this, I wrote oathkeepers an email telling them that I will no longer support them in any way.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

While that is what the Kentucky law within the state say, the Supreme court decision nullify the pre existing rules.


Gov. Steve Beshear said county clerks in Kentucky could immediately begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"I have instructed the Kentucky Department of Libraries and Archives to provide revised marriage license forms to our county clerks for immediate use, beginning today," Beshear said in a statement. "We will report additional expected policy changes in the coming days."


Read more here: www.kentucky.com...=cpy

So yes she was still braking the law and the ruling.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: luthier

Tribals ar eusually not normally under any laws so your example is not applicable.

Why can the government reject a duly given verdict by a jury? It seems liek th elaw is for US and not for them right?
The government became a dictatorship with th eillusion of voting then.


I am saying a person from a tribe can claim this if they are a us citizen not on a reservation.

Second the 14th came about for instance because white juries could do what ever they wanted to blacks. If kim davis lived in a satanic county should they be able to vote against her because of their faith or should they follow the law? The people are not always right as we see with the whole slavery issue. luckily freedom and liberty have universal applications.


Well these days it seems the 14th is out dated then. Since the constitution should be involved in every verdict and with Juries being made up of more than just whites. In other words they are stacking the laws in their favor not the peoples and using race as the excuse. We are to had a trial of our peers and a al white or black jury is not that.

Our system is set up in such a way trials didnt need a amendment if they would had followed th elaw,but now our goverment is beyond touch legally then.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: luthier

Tribals ar eusually not normally under any laws so your example is not applicable.

Why can the government reject a duly given verdict by a jury? It seems liek th elaw is for US and not for them right?
The government became a dictatorship with th eillusion of voting then.


I am saying a person from a tribe can claim this if they are a us citizen not on a reservation.

Second the 14th came about for instance because white juries could do what ever they wanted to blacks. If kim davis lived in a satanic county should they be able to vote against her because of their faith or should they follow the law? The people are not always right as we see with the whole slavery issue. luckily freedom and liberty have universal applications.


Well these days it seems the 14th is out dated then. Since the constitution should be involved in every verdict and with Juries being made up of more than just whites. In other words they are stacking the laws in their favor not the peoples and using race as the excuse. We are to had a trial of our peers and a al white or black jury is not that.

Our system is set up in such a way trials didnt need a amendment if they would had followed th elaw,but now our goverment is beyond touch legally then.


As we clearly see here its necessary to protect minorities from religous zealots.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!


The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.


Hence the contempt ruling. Their is no trial. Its really basic law.


Even a murderer who kill sin public in front of thousands of witnesses gets a trial even if they admit their guilt. It s a right.

Walk in to a courtroom and disobey a direct order from the judge, and see how quickly you end up in a cell for contempt. She has not been denied her right to a trial. She was held in contempt, and arrested just as you and I would have been.


Ok walk in judge says Kill the bailiff. Judge says it SO i have to do it correct? If i refuse he can slap me with contempt right? UNDO gets what I am saying. judges have way too much power. all they need is hoods on their robes and they can all be sith lords with UNLIMITED POWARRRRRRR!!!!



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: luthier

Tribals ar eusually not normally under any laws so your example is not applicable.

Why can the government reject a duly given verdict by a jury? It seems liek th elaw is for US and not for them right?
The government became a dictatorship with th eillusion of voting then.



edit on 11-9-2015 by luthier because: double



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!


The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.


Hence the contempt ruling. Their is no trial. Its really basic law.


Even a murderer who kill sin public in front of thousands of witnesses gets a trial even if they admit their guilt. It s a right.

Walk in to a courtroom and disobey a direct order from the judge, and see how quickly you end up in a cell for contempt. She has not been denied her right to a trial. She was held in contempt, and arrested just as you and I would have been.


So mob rule then hm.. Ok.


Ok walk in judge says Kill the bailiff. Judge says it SO i have to do it correct? If i refuse he can slap me with contempt right? UNDO gets what I am saying. judges have way too much power. all they need is hoods on their robes and they can all be sith lords with UNLIMITED POWARRRRRRR!!!!



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

How? they ar e not hanging,lynching or putting them in jail liek they did the Blacks. They arent stacking juries with straights are they?

Also you DID read th epost i replied to with th e unlimited power comment right? read that quote then edit your ne w post.
edit on 15000000pppm by yuppa because: reasons



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: luthier

How? they ar e not hanging,lynching or putting them in jail liek they did the Blacks. They arent stacking juries with straights are they?


What? Are they making sure the jury has gay "peers"?

You said davis would walk in kentucky even if she is breaking the law, wbich she clearly is. Thats mob rule.

You have a very wishy washy point. What is your point? Should davis not be punished for breaking the law? Do you understand the difference between a hearing and trial and why?

Do you believe kim davis can deprive gay couples of a contract because of her religous views?
edit on 11-9-2015 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: luthier

How? they ar e not hanging,lynching or putting them in jail liek they did the Blacks. They arent stacking juries with straights are they?


What? Are they making sure the jury has gay "peers"?

You said davis would walk in kentucky even if she is breaking the law, wbich she clearly is. Thats mob rule.


Jury selection is just for that purpose. finding ones with similiar thoughs and likes or dislikes. im sure there would had been one or two on it who supported marriage.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Here's the actual OathKeepers page and a link to a partial court filing.

Oath Keepers Offers Kim Davis Protection From Further Imprisonment by Judge

Case: 15-5978 Document: 9-1 Filed: 09/08/2015

and a youtube audio....


Published on Sep 9, 2015

In this video, Stewart Rhodes and some of the Oath Keepers national and local leadership discuss the real issues behind what is happening in Rowan County, Kentucky. We have had boots on the ground there since last week and will continue to have a presence. Stewart Rhodes reached out personally to Davis’s legal counsel to offer protection to Kim, to ensure that she will not be illegally detained again. We would like to stress in the strongest terms possible that we are doing this not because of her views on gay marriage, but because she is an elected public servant who has been illegally arrested and held without due process.

Oath Keepers offer of protection for embattled Clerk Kim Davis






posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
As we clearly see here its necessary to protect minorities from religous zealots.

Amen!

The 14th amendment is FINE.

For decades, religion has been pushing and creeping its way into secular law and the justice system is having to define the separation between the two. The Church is discovering how much imposition the State is willing to accept. So, naturally, the church is NOT happy with feeling the "push back".

They want to change the Constitution now, because it doesn't allow for religious law. Sheesh!



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

So are we to have now a civil disobedience, what the federal government to do, bring in the national guard?



Its this what America has become now, a fight between religious zealots against the rest of the population?


edit on 11-9-2015 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join