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: 7
69
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: undo

Plus there's this:


13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.


Romans 13: 1-7

I guess Leviticus is more exciting for Kim Davis?




posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: undo
if she stopped to think for five seconds, she'd realize that as per her religious beliefs, god is the only one that ordains marriage, not the state, and as a result, she could sign papers till the cows come home, and it wouldn't mean a thing (religiously speaking). if she's concerned that it is a violation of her religious creed, all she needs to do is disconnect her attachment to the idea that the state supersedes god on religious issues, which it doesn't. and if it doesn't, then she's not violating her faith by signing the documents.

pretty simple.

I think she's letting the church, and her attorneys do her thinking for her. They'll throw her under the bus in a heartbeat, if it comes down to it.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Direct from the Oath Keepers website. Just so I know exactly what they are saying.




We believe Federal District Court Judge David Bunning grossly overstepped his bounds and violated Mrs Davis’ due process rights, and in particular her right to a jury trial. This judge has assumed unto himself not just the powers of all three branches of government, but has also taken on the powers of judge, jury, and “executioner.” What matters to us is not whether you agree with her position on gay marriage or her decision to not issue marriage licenses. What matters is that the judge is violating the Constitution in his anger and desire to punish her for going against his will. We are already being subjected to an unconstitutional imperial presidency, that grew exponentially under both Bush and Obama, expanding the claimed war powers of the president to swallow up our Bill of Rights and circumvent jury trial. The result is an executive branch that claims the absurd power to declare any American an “unlawful combatant” on the say-so of the president alone. oathkeepers.org...


Here is a link to her legal counsel’s motion to stay the judge’s order, which notes the due process problems with what the judge did: : www.liberty.edu...



edit on 11-9-2015 by Annee because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: 5thNovember
So we can change marriage laws because they don't accommodate the gays


Nope, you change the marriage laws because no religion owns marriage, your constitution states that all are equal under the law, and no religious person has a right to tell other people how they can live or what rights they are afforded.

It's really pretty simple...

LGBT people were treated unjustly under US law, therefore the law was changed.
Christians have not been treated unjustly at all under US law, their rights are not being infringed at all, and this woman was employed by the public to SERVE ALL OF THE PUBLIC.

If you cannot see the difference here then you need to go back to first grade and start all over again.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
I wish some of you would get so up in arms when Obama, Bush, and the rest continue to violate their oaths of office, hypocrites.

This is exactly what happens when the SCOTUS oversteps it's authority and tries to make laws from the bench instead of their intended purpose of simply judging constitutionality. You end up with laws that haven't been thought out or implemented correctly. With proper time for states and municipalities to take care of the small details like this, there would have been no problems, but we are a society of instant gratification which apparently extends all the way to the SCOTUS too. We can't even be troubled with going through the processes that the Constitution intended.

The anti Religion people are becoming troubling as well, some of you don't even hear the bigotry in your own words, all while calling out others for bigotry? SAD.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: karmicecstasy
Well this just proves that the Oathkeepers are a bunch of hypocrites. They do not care about the Constitution. They just want to follow it when it supports their position.

Plus aren't the Oathkeepers big second amendment supporters. Don't they realize that they will just give the government and those who are anti gun a huge excuse to limit gun rights. A big shoot out between the Oathkeepers and the feds is exactly the excuse the government needs to step in and "restore order".

But maybe that is what both sides want.


Seems so, if they get in a shoot out. We'll all pay for it by having the 2nd removed or changed to the point where it no longer serves a function.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

well not to mention, old testament jews didn't live in a constitutional country, where your rights as a religious individual supersede state mandated religious laws. this was a safety valve so that no religious laws could be created and forced on individuals, against their wills. the state is not a religion, it's not claiming the authority of religion, and as a result, its documents are not going to effect individually held religious creeds.

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



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Contempt of Court is not new or novel - and that is why Kim Davis was jailed. It wasn't an arbitrary act of extortion. It was the customary process for dealing with a person who failed to follow a Court order.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: undo

No, Old Testament Jews had it worse. They were slaves to Egypt - and God still told them to adhere to the laws. I'm guessing, in his eyes, Kim Davis probably looks pretty foolish right now.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Annee

Contempt of Court is not new or novel - and that is why Kim Davis was jailed. It wasn't an arbitrary act of extortion. It was the customary process for dealing with a person who failed to follow a Court order.



I agree with you.

I'm just trying to figure out their thinking.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs


I've been waiting for the GoFundMe

GoFundMe told her to Go Fund Herself.

They shut down the attempt.


Seeing as how the internet is regulated by the FCC now, wouldn't that qualify as discrimination as well?



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Looks like we've got "creeping laws" happening in North Carolina now.

The Oath Keepers may have to spread themselves out.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: EverydayInVA


I wish some of you would get so up in arms when Obama, Bush, and the rest continue to violate their oaths of office, hypocrites.

We do. Obviously you haven't read the threads pertaining to Obama, Bush, and others.


This is exactly what happens when the SCOTUS oversteps it's authority and tries to make laws from the bench instead of their intended purpose of simply judging constitutionality.

For the umpteenth time. The SCOTUS made no new law. It is their job to interpret existing law. Which they did, and rightly so in this case.


With proper time for states and municipalities to take care of the small details like this, there would have been no problems, but we are a society of instant gratification which apparently extends all the way to the SCOTUS too. We can't even be troubled with going through the processes that the Constitution intended.

This has been an ongoing legal issue since the 70's and previous. How many decades do we need to eeeease everyone into it? It has not been instant gratification for those who have waited decades for the constitution to be upheld by the courts.


The anti Religion people are becoming troubling as well, some of you don't even hear the bigotry in your own words, all while calling out others for bigotry? SAD.

Calling out bigotry for what it is, isn't bigotry in return. It is pointing out the elephant that has been in the room for centuries, and no longer tolerating the mess it is making on the carpet, and the stench coming from it.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

i think what has happened is, people have confused "what belongs to caesar". literally, you cannot be held religiously, morally, ethically, responsible, for signing state documents that have no bearing on religion. gay marriage has no bearing on religion, as it is a state sanctioned legal document not a religiously ordained legal document (and by religiously ordained i mean, does god recognize it? if not, it's not a god ordained marriage but rather, it's a legal agreement, supported by a non religious institution). if she has no problem signing other state related legal documents, then this is essentially the same thing.

a legal document is not a religious document in a constitutional government.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I got a question. Reading th efirst amendment it says in it congress shall make no law abridging relgious freedom correct?
SO with the marriage law being changed they in effect HAVE abridged it because it interferes with the relgious rights of people who believe diffrently on it.

The Judge who issued the contemp also abridged it apparently then.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: 5thNovember
So we can change marriage laws because they don't accommodate the gays


Nope, you change the marriage laws because no religion owns marriage, your constitution states that all are equal under the law, and no religious person has a right to tell other people how they can live or what rights they are afforded.

It's really pretty simple...

LGBT people were treated unjustly under US law, therefore the law was changed.
Christians have not been treated unjustly at all under US law, their rights are not being infringed at all, and this woman was employed by the public to SERVE ALL OF THE PUBLIC.

If you cannot see the difference here then you need to go back to first grade and start all over again.


rocker, most of us know it's pretty simple....but, not to the Christian fundamentalists in America....they have for decades now, tried and succeeded in some areas, to forward their religious agenda...."in god we trust" on our money is one of them. I don't trust in god, I trust in man's intellectual and critical-thinking skills as far as "running our country"...not gods....I will not swear on a bible in court, I will not say "under god" in the pledge of allegiance, I do not want my grandchildren to attend a religious school, we do not need a congressional prayer sanctioned and read in either house of congress. I will not get down on my knees to pray to a mythical being, etc...



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Direct from the Oath Keepers website. Just so I know exactly what they are saying.




We believe Federal District Court Judge David Bunning grossly overstepped his bounds and violated Mrs Davis’ due process rights, and in particular her right to a jury trial. This judge has assumed unto himself not just the powers of all three branches of government, but has also taken on the powers of judge, jury, and “executioner.” What matters to us is not whether you agree with her position on gay marriage or her decision to not issue marriage licenses. What matters is that the judge is violating the Constitution in his anger and desire to punish her for going against his will. We are already being subjected to an unconstitutional imperial presidency, that grew exponentially under both Bush and Obama, expanding the claimed war powers of the president to swallow up our Bill of Rights and circumvent jury trial. The result is an executive branch that claims the absurd power to declare any American an “unlawful combatant” on the say-so of the president alone. oathkeepers.org...


Here is a link to her legal counsel’s motion to stay the judge’s order, which notes the due process problems with what the judge did: : www.liberty.edu...




That's really quite interesting in that it seems to demonstrate an abuse of power and the violation of Due Process. extra DIV



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Religious Tyranny at it's finest... all this talk of "Progressive" "Liberal" "Gay Agenda" "Pink Mafia".. but Religious Freedom...



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
I got a question. Reading th efirst amendment it says in it congress shall make no law abridging relgious freedom correct?
SO with the marriage law being changed they in effect HAVE abridged it because it interferes with the relgious rights of people who believe diffrently on it.

The Judge who issued the contemp also abridged it apparently then.

No new law has been passed. Existing law has been interpreted, and a judgement made that marriage is a right that must be afforded equally to ALL, per the 14th amendment.



posted on Sep, 11 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

No, you are free to worship who and how you choose. You don't have to follow any specific religion. But you cannot use your religion to abridge any one else's rights. For example, you cannot use your religious beliefs to chop off the head of a non-believer. You cannot use your religious beliefs to go against non-discrimination laws. You cannot use your religious beliefs to break existing laws.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
69
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join