I would completely disagree on the logical fallacy

and yes Divorce is not a sin....but REMARRIAGE to a divorced women or man IS...if you find a verse that says remarriages is ok(outside of the family) i'd love to see it.

Second you are comparing apples to oranges with the examples of Daniel, these laws passed affected THEIR actions directly, it was things THEY were supposed to do, not do.

Please show me a verse, where a law was not followed to block SOMEONE ELSE from committing sin.


That assumption that you say is fallacious was given by God,

again Proverbs 16:2
"All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the LORD weighs the motives. "

Mathew 7:4
Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

Romans 14:1
Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only.…



Personally I believe the ways Gays are seen today is the same way that prostitutes were seen in Biblical days.

It seems almost every christian wants to 'stone' them in a sense, they're evil, vile, detestable etc.... so many judgemental Christians that want to 'prove' how righteous they are.

I honestly believe that if Christ were walking the earth today, it may not have been a prostitute that he was protecting, it easily may have a been a Gay man/women when he looked at the rest of us and said "he who is without sin, cast the first stone"

Please show me a verse, that doesn't DIRECTLY affect someones faith as in what they CAN and CAN'T do,

If a law came out that said i HAD to marry man, no i wouldn't follow it, but that law would be affecting me personally, this law that she refused to sign, really had nothing to do with her. She's simply
a bigot

its pretty simple

the law stated they had to participate in praying to another idol,, which is a sin,, so they did not

the law now states that some people have to facilitate homosexual lifestyle, which is a sin,, so they do not


there is nothing that says remarriage is a sin,,

…Corinthians 7 : 14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. 16For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?


if she is no longer BOUND why would marrying again be a sin?



Matthew 5:32
But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.



EXCEPT FOR SEXUAL IMMORALITY,,,adultery exists UNLESS there had been adultery in the marriage that caused the divorce,,,


Mathew 7:4
Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? 5"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye


This verse suggest a matter of order, that is all

FIRST do this, THEN do that,, it doesnt say to avoid taking the speck out of the brothers eye,, it just states you should see clearly out of your own BEFORE you do ,,,

and when you do, it doesnt make you a bigot,,,because correction is a loving thing,, despite having to make a 'judgment' to do it

just make sure the correction is correct,,,


for the sake of clarifying THIS CHRISTIANS point of view

I dont judge any PERSON as vile or anything else for being a sinner, because I believe all humans sin from time to time, they fall , etc,,,noone is perfect

but I do judge whether ACTIONS and words are sinful,,, there is a HUGE Difference

wonderful people commit sins just as terrible people do,, there is difference between judging the PERSON and having judgment about actions and words,,

as a christian, I follow christs example, in hoping for us all to be able to turn from sin and in openly stating my belief that we can,,,and should,,

and should certainly not EMBRACE it and rebelliously resist righteous behavior instead,,

Sunday school aside (not everyone believes the same in this country)...she is paid by tax payers. Gay marriage is legal (like it or not)...if she want to stand by her beliefs...power to the people...but don't expect to go against law and get paid. Stand up for your beliefs...great. But get paid by tax payers...do your job

No religious arguments matter in the least with this. Those are all personal matters for the individual. It is a fundamental American principle that no one's personal religious beliefs will be impeded, except as they impinge on another person's personal religious (or non-religious) freedoms.

When this woman concluded that her job was no longer acceptable to her religious convictions, she was completely within her rights to resign her job.

There is nothing in American law which supports the idea that she should be allowed to demand as she did, that her personal religious convictions should become the functional rule of law, simply because she held the position that she did.

Bingo dingo.
No RELIGIOUS belief or RELIGIOUS law supersedes The CONSTITUTION of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (a LEGAL document).

free exercise of religion

exercise is how we APPLY our religous belief to our ACTIONS

if my religion is opposed to same sex marriage to mandate, (in my job or anyplace else) that I STAMP APPROVAL on same sex marriage,, I am being prohibited from exercise of my religious belief


but as I said before,, give to ceasers what is ceasers

christians have used marriage to mean HOLY MATRIMONY which is the vow between a man and woman and God joining them together

the world has used marriage to mean a LEGAL CONTRACT which is binding between two people and the government promising to do certain things for them in return


let the government have MARRIAGE and concern ourselves only with HOLY MATRIMONY

consider these positions merely a statement of the action of WITNESSING people enter a contract and not one of approving it,,,

the constitution remains silent on marriage

an interpretation has been read into it by the authorities that be to state something in it APPLIES somehow to marriage,,

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."



somehow, man and woman sounds as if it denies noone and covers everybody, everyone falls under one or the other,,,

,,well except related people, whom , even if they are man and woman, are prohibited from the 'privilege' of marriage or the equal protection of the law to be married,,

she never demanded a FUNCTIONAL RULE OF LAW, she only asked for a religious exemption

like we do with the RULE OF LAW that students in public schools have vaccines,, but allow RELIGIOUS exemption for some whose beliefs dont allow it,,,

ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Unless, of course, you claim that it's a necessary part of your religion that you rule over others as their master. If you do, then you really need to change your citizenship over to one of the countries where your religion is an innate part of the government.

Free exercise of your religion in the United States, means that you get to run YOUR life as you wish. NOT that you get to tell even one other person how to live.

and what I sign or dont sign is part of how I run MY life




it doesnt require me to rule over you, if you ask me to drive you to a booze party when I dont drink

I am choosing not to participate or contribute to what you want as what you want is out of line with what I believe to be a healthy behavior/atmosphere

thats ruling over ME,, which we all should have the option to do

likewise, Im not ruling over you if I dont want to authorize or sign consent to something you want to do if I dont agree with it,, I am ruling over ME and you have the option to choose someone else to do it who does agree with it,,,


but it doesnt matter, as I have said, if we give up our understanding of the word 'marriage' in terms of holy matrimony

they are seperate things

one: a contract between two citizens and a government that obligates the government to the couple


two: a vow between a man and woman and God that obligates the COUPLE to God,,,


it is quite possible to sign as a witness without agreeing with what you witnessed, and as a government employee, the answer is to understand your signature as nothing but a testimony to your WITNESS of that contract and not your APPROVAL,,,,

This is from ky.gov


The most important part being

Therefore, she is failing to uphold her oath of office.

This breaks down rather simple. The supreme court ruled banning same sex marriage is against the 14th Amendment of the constitution. Therefore, it is law to allow same sex marriages in every state. It is the job of the County Circuit Court Clerk to issue marriage licences. She was elected as the County Circuit Court Clerk. Now she is refusing to do part of that job. Since she unable to perform the job she has been elected to do (no matter what the reason) then she should step down. Otherwise, she is breaking the law.

When you have a job, you are supposed perform the task required of said job. When you don't perform the required task of a job, you get fired. No one says she has to agree with it.

thats how it is now, not how it always has been or how it should necessarily be,, but yes, how it is

employers arent mandated to have any detailed or specific job duties, they can just hire you in a capacity and expand or change it at will,,,


however, because elected officials are supposed to speak for those electing them, they arent able to be fired,, ,,,they can be voted out if their constituents dont feel represented

its one thing if someone tells me your duties will be sweep the floor, vaccuum the carpets and clean the windows and give massages

and I agree to perform my 'duties' under that context

and then they say, well your duties involve ALL massages including naked ones,,

yeah, I did agree to massage as a duty, but the context I understood that duty to be under was with clothes on,,,not with clothes off

legally, and unfortunately , an employer has the right to be that vague so they can hold you to anything they decide to change

but if the employer is the voters, its at least a little harder for any one person, or entity, to change up the context of your job and force you between adapting or unemployment,,,

in the end, she will no doubt lose her position, unless she changes her perception to view her job as witnessing a contract and nothing else

as long as she continues to consider it consenting to an agreement,, her values force her to refuse, and she will lose the position,,,

This is true, though they can be impeached.


Sure, but you always have the option to quit. That would be how you make your stand.


See, that is the thing though. Her job did not change. All she has to do is sign a piece of paper. Just as before. The only thing that changed is the other people signing the paper.


Since her values force her to refuse, the only correct option she has is to step down from the position. Otherwise, she is not only violating the oath she took when she accepted the job, but also the law.

but that is NOT necessarily the ONLY Other option

just as homeschooling is not the ONLY option for those who dont wish to register where vaccines are a part of the registration,,,


just quitting isnt making a stand , people quit all the time, making a stand is fighting to be able to not be punished with unemployment due to following your religious conviction..and maybe setting a precedent for others

I doubt the LGBT movement will have any tolerance for anything but EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US type execution of the law,,,but I admire her for trying

and if what I am signing changes, it indeeds changes what I am doing

thats like my daughter bringing me a form to sign for her to have my consent to go on a field trip

and then asking me to sign a form permitting her to have consent to go on a field trip at 3 am


and declaring,, you were going to sign it before,,,,and Im still just asking you to sign it,, so nothing changed,,,




however, the issue here is in perception and her own conscience about what signing means,, I believe her true conviction is that ir is a type or participatory CONSENT,, like in the abovementioned example

in growing ever more cognizant of the difference between marriage (the governments institution) and holy matrimony( the spiritual connection),,,I am able in my heart to view those signatures as nothing more than a witnessing

the same way I may sign my name on a witness statement after telling what has happened,, its nothing to do with whether I am CONSENTING to or AGREEING with what happened, just that I attest to being a witnss that it DID happen


,,unfortunately, thats not how she sees it though,,,if she sees it as consent, t han she cant do it

I'm not quite sure what you admire about a citizen going against the law of the land when hundreds of thousands of dollars have most likely already been spent on this absurdity(her).

Would you admire a Muslim pushing a verse in the Koran in the same public manner?

you surprise me daily MsH

That's why we love her.

That is only because signing a field trip consent form is in fact giving your consent from someone you are responsible for. It's not the same thing as signing a marriage license. She is not responsible for the people getting married. All she is signing is a document that says it is legal for them to get married. Which it is.

This has nothing to do with religion or what she thinks is right or wrong. This has only has to do with what is legal. You can not be a public servant and violate the law you swore to uphold. Which is exactly what she is doing.

This is basicly the same as when County Clerks we denying marriage licenses to mixed couples. They didn't think with a black person should marry a white person. However, the law said they could. Once again, they either had to follow the law or resign their jobs. History shows, they either did their jobs or got replaced.

The county clerk's office is not the place to make a stand like that anyway. This was a ruling by the Federal supreme court. The only way to really make a stand against them is to make it with the federal government. Therefore, what she is doing makes no sense. She can't change the law from her position, and instead of working with the people that could change the law she is making a media circus and getting her name in the headlines. She want's her 15 minutes. Well, now she's had her time and nothing has changed. Except now people know how much of a bigot she really is.

The law will not change because it is in agreement with 14th Amendment. The only way to change the law is to modify the 14th Amendment. Which, by the way, would also take away women's rights. Are you sure you support her now?

In the US we have equal rights due to the 14th. You change the 14th and we no longer have equal rights. Sure, that would mean same sex marriage could be illegal. However, it also means black people would have no rights, the only people that could own land is white males, and the only people that could vote are land owners. That is what the constitution said before the 14th amendment was added. Why would anyone want to go back to that? Besides some white male landowners that is.

Over all what it comes down to is, if you don't like the law, changed it. Although, the day the US stops having equal rights is the same day I move permanently to another country where they do.

Any elected official guilty of committing a crime, which she has, can be ousted.
Any elected official proven to not uphold their SPECIFIC DUTY (like a sheriff seen driving by an accident on the way to burger king) can be removed.
Any elected official that publicly openly willingly and knowingly defies an ORDER of THE COURT, especially when their oath is sworn to a Court like a County Clerk or Clerk of Court, can be removed.

Refusal to issue a LEGAL document to ANYONE is grounds for removal of any ELECTED LEGAL CLERK.
It is entirely possible that she could have misinterpreted her LEGAL duty because NO CHANGE has been made to the 14th amendment which the SUPREME COURT used as LEGAL basis for their LEGAL decision. It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to deny a citizen LEGAL documents for RELIGIOUS reasons. Her office is not in a church and she doesn't do RELIGIOUS work. She is a brainwashed hypocritical bigot that claims to speak FOR AUTHORITY OF GOD over rule of THE SUPREME COURT AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?
1 STUPID!!
2 BLASPHEMY!!

You're right but that's not the most important part of her oath or affirmation.
Here's the legalese meat:

"making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees,
opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all
books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not
knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the
duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality,"

Here's what she did wrong or failed to do:

" making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees,
opinions and proceedings of THE COURT
(not CHURCH or voice in Kim Davis' head claiming the authority of GOD),
and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that

I will NOT KNOWINGLY or WILLINGLY commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the
duties of my office WITHOUT FAVOR(ITISM), AFFECTION or PARTIALITY,"

This means if Becky Johnson is her bestest friend in the whole wide world and her highschool sweetheart and father of her children comes in asking for a marriage license with a stripper two days after breaking up with Becky it is her SWORN DUTY as county clerk to issue THAT marriage license. Even if she knows it was just a misunderstanding that could blow over in a few days, that's what she was ELECTED and SWORN to do. It doesn't matter if the stripper practices voodoo has a peg leg and a glass eye. That's what Rowan county and the State of Kentucky pay her $80,000 a year to do.

many changes have come through people protesting or contesting or 'going against ' the law

peaceful protests where blacks set where they were not permitted were against the law, and I admire MLK for his habit of leading them

and yes, I would admire a muslim if they entered a position in one capacity and then had to endure a change that directly contested their religious convictions with no opportunity for some interim compromise to acknowledge the reality that their job has changed from what they were to believe they would do when they applied,,especially if they have done that job well up til the point that the dynamics changed,,,