KENTUCKY COURT CLERK AND AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS BY CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE

LET'S DISCUSS CIVIL RIGHTS IN AMERICA.
CIVIL...RIGHTS...
MANY ARE ASKING, "WHAT THE HELL IS THAT, REALLY?"

DEFINITION IS QUITE SIMPLE:

"Personal liberties that belong to an individual, owing to his or her status as a citizen or resident of a particular 
country or community."

CORNELL UNIVERSITY OFFERS A MORE LEGAL LOOK AT THE DEFINITION AND A FURTHER "EXPLANATION".

SO, LET'S TAKE THE SIMPLE AND MAKE IT COMPLEX.

"A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. "

WHAT IS AN ACTION FOR INJURY THEN?
"a : an act that damages or hurts :  2. : hurt, damage, or loss sustained. "

"A comprehensive term for any wrong or harm done by one individual to another individual's body, rights, reputation, or property.
Any interference with an individual's legally protected interest.

A civil injury is any damage done to person or property that is precipitated by a
breach of contract, 

Negligence, or breach of duty. 

The law of TORTS provides remedies for injury caused by negligent or intentional
acts."

THEN WE'D HAVE TO DEFINE DAMAGE, HURT, WRONG, HARM, CIVIL, BREACH OF CONTRACT, ETC.
AND HAVING TO DO THAT AND THEN DEFINE EACH NEW WORD WE FOUND FROM ALL THOSE DEFINITIONS MAY MAKE US DESPISE LAW IN GENERAL.
NO?
YES?

FORGET DISCRIMINATION FOR JUST A FEW SHORT MOMENTS! 
WE NEED TO LOCK DOWN CIVIL RIGHTS!

WHAT PRECISE CIVIL RIGHTS" WERE SUCCINCTLY DEFINED IN AND BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION THAT APPLY TO THIS KENTUCKY BUSINESS?
COULD WE FIND THOSE IN THE ORIGINAL BILL OF RIGHTS?

LO AND BEHOLD, WE CAN FIND THOSE, AND IN THAT ORIGINAL VERSION, <RIGHT HERE>!
OH, WHAT MIGHT THOSE RIGHTS BE THAT PERTAIN THE BIG STINK IN OLD KENTUCKY?
Article the third... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  

Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

SAY, THAT'S A GOOD START, ISN'T IT?
TWELVE ORIGINAL ARTICLES.

MARRIAGE WAS NOT DELEGATED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WAS IT....EVER?

BUT DIDN'T THOSE GET "AMENDED"?
YES.

WHAT DO THE ADDITIONS/AMENDMENTS GUARANTEE, AS FAR AS "RIGHTS" GO?

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
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.

SURE LOOKS TO ME LIKE FREEDOM OF OR RIGHT TO EXERCISE ONE'S RELIGION WAS NUMBER ONE IN THOSE "AMENDMENTS".

IT ALSO SEEMS CLEAR THAT STATES' LAWS CANNOT INFRINGE ON FEDERAL LAW.
FAIR ENOUGH!

LET ME KNOW IF I'M WRONG.

(1) ALL AMERICANS ARE GUARANTEED THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
(2) NO FEDERAL LAW EVER EXISTED REGARDING MARRIAGE, PERIOD, LEAVING THAT TO THE STATES.
MOST OF YOU WERE PROBABLY EITHER NOT BORN OR WERE VERY YOUNG WHEN INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE WAS "ILLEGAL" IN MOST STATES.
(3) IF ONE IS A U.S. CITIZEN, ONE HAS "CIVIL RIGHTS"...EVERY CITIZEN, ALL CITIZENS.

NOW LET'S GO BACK AND LOOK TWO OR THREE MORE TIMES, LOOK DILIGENTLY.
DOES ANYONE SEE ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION,THE BILL OF RIGHTS, ITS AMENDMENTS THE RIGHT TO MARRY...PERIOD...JUST A RIGHT TO MARRY?
DOES IT MENTION MARRIAGE AT ALL?
LOOK HARD, LOOK CLOSELY.
DOES ANYONE FIND THAT ANYWHERE?

I WENT SEARCHING AND ALL I FOUND WAS A SORT OF "WISH LIST" POSTED ONLINE ABOUT FEDERAL LAW AND THE LGBT COMMUNITY.

YOU SEE, IT IS STATES, EACH STATE THAT SHOULD DETERMINE WHO CAN MARRY AND WHO CANNOT. 

THIS IS MORE ABOUT FEDERAL POWER OVER STATES THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
THIS IS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT STATES HAVE ANY POWER LEFT, AND WHETHER OR NOT AMERICANS' VOTES COUNT FOR ANYTHING ANYMORE.

WHICH STATES WERE ALREADY ALLOWING SAME-SEX MARRIAGES PRIOR TO THE FEDERAL JUDGES GETTING INVOLVED?

READ ALL ABOUT IT <HERE>.

"Before 1993, seven states had laws that defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. After the Hawaii court decision raised the possibility that states could recognize same sex marriage, 32 state legislatures (including Hawaii) adopted statutory language defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, including Alaska, which adopted both a statute and the nation’s first constitutional provision prohibiting same-sex marriage. 

Nebraska adopted a constitutional provision limiting marriage to relationships between a man and a woman.

As a result, 40 states had statutory and/or constitutional provisions limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples by the end of 2000.

Starting in 2000, some states began recognizing same-sex couples’ relationships. 

In April 2000, Vermont approved landmark legislation to recognize civil unions between same-sex couples, granting them virtually all the benefits, protections and responsibilities that married couples have under Vermont law.
The court ruled that the Vermont General Assembly must decide how to provide these benefits and protections, either by legalizing marriage for same-sex couples or by establishing an alternative system.

The Vermont General Assembly chose to preserve marriage as the "legally recognized union of one man and one woman," but at the same time create a parallel system of civil unions for same-sex couples that went beyond existing "domestic partnership" and "reciprocal beneficiaries."

In Nov. 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that barring same-sex couples from civil marriage was unconstitutional. The Senate then asked the court for an advisory opinion on the constitutionality of a proposed law that would bar same-sex couples from civil marriage but would create civil unions as a parallel institution, with all the same benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities under law. 

In February, the court answered, "segregating same-sex unions from opposite-sex unions cannot possibly be held rationally to advance or preserve" the governmental aim of encouraging "stable adult relationships for the good of the individual and of the community, especially its children." Under this decision, the state of Massachusetts began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in May 2004.  It was the first state to do so."

LIKEWISE, THE STANCE OF EACH MEMBER OF CONGRESS ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE CAN BE FOUND <HERE> FOR THE SENATE AND <HERE> FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LAW WAS LEFT UP TO STATES TO DECIDE INITIALLY, BECAUSE MARRIAGE RIGHTS ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, IN THE CONSTITUTION.

AGAIN, LIKE ANY OTHER MARRIAGE, IT IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, NOT MENTIONED IN THE CONSTITUTION, AND WAS NOT EVER CONSTRUED BY THE FOUNDERS TO BE A FEDERAL DECISION.

BUT LOOK WHAT IS AND HAS BEEN IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS...FREEDOM TO EXERCISE ONE'S RELIGION, AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS STATED IT WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH RELIGION NOR ALLOW RELIGION TO INTERFERE WITH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

OBVIOUSLY, THEY LIED, RIGHT?

WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN THE TEA ROOM, SAW THAT DISCRIMINATION WAS DEFINITELY HAPPENING IN BOTH DIRECTIONS ON THIS ISSUE, THAT, YES, BY LAW, SOMEONE CAN CLAIM DISCRIMINATION IF THEY ARE LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL OR TRANSGENDER AND THEN THEY HAVE TO PROVE THE DISCRIMINATION.

HOWEVER,ON THE OTHER HAND, ANY AMERICAN WHO PROFESSES CHRISTIANITY AND REFUSES TO DO ANY OF SEVERAL THINGS ONE CAN THINK OF BECAUSE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, CALL THEM COMMANDMENTS OF RULES, DO NOT ALLOW THEM TO DO THUS AND SO, TO BE AGREEABLE TO CERTAIN THINGS, THOSE PEOPLE ARE BEING ACCUSED OF HATE CRIMES, OF DISCRIMINATION.

BUT CHRISTIAN BELIEFS AND THOSE WHO HOLD THEM ARE ALSO VICTIMS OF DISCRIMINATION!

DOESN'T ANY RULING AGAINST A CHRISTIAN'S RIGHT TO HOLD SUCH BELIEFS IN WHATEVER JOB THEY MAY FILL, IN ITSELF DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CHRISTIANS?

AREN'T ANY CHRISTIAN'S RIGHTS VIOLATED WHEN ANY GOVERNMENT FROM LOCAL TO FEDERAL DEMANDS THEY THROW OUT THEIR BELIEFS, DISCARD THEIR FAITH, DISOBEY THEIR ACCEPTED RELIGIOUS LAWS AND BOW TO SECULAR LAW INSTEAD?
[WE ARE SEEING THE SAME THING IN CALIFORNIA PLAY OUT AS CHRISTIANS WHOSE BELIEFS DO NOT ALLOW FOR VACCINES ARE BEING FORCED TO VACCINATE THEIR CHILDREN, "OR ELSE".]

ISN'T THAT LIKE SAYING, "YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS BE HANGED! YOU OBEY MAN'S LAWS OR ELSE, AND IF YOU HAVE TO BREAK A COMMANDMENT OR PISS ON A CHURCH CREDO, THEN DO SO...OR ELSE!"

HOLD ON!
I'M SIMPLY ESTABLISHING THAT FEDERAL LAW WAS NEVER WRITTEN ABOUT MARRIAGE...JUST MARRIAGE, ANY MARRIAGE.
THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO THE STATES.

I THINK THE CLERK SHOULD HAVE STEPPED DOWN...QUIT HER JOB, AND THEN, ONLY IF SHE WAS HIRED PRIOR TO THE STATE ISSUING SAME-SEX LICENSES AND ONLY IF SHE WAS WILLING TO MOVE ASIDE SO SOMEONE ELSE COULD ISSUE A LICENSE, SHE SHOULD SUE THE SUPREME HELL OUT OF THE STATE /COUNTY GOVERNMENT FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING AND FOR HAVING TO CHOOSE BETWEEN LIVING HER FAITH OR KEEPING HER JOB.

THEN AGAIN, BEING 100% FAIR, ANY OF THOSE COUPLES SHE REFUSED COULD HAVE SIMPLY GONE TO ANOTHER COURTHOUSE ANYWHERE IN THAT STATE AND GOTTEN WHAT THEY WANTED.
I AM NOT SAYING THEY SHOULD, BUT THEY COULD HAVE.

HOW MANY, AFTER THE FIRST TURNDOWN, WENT TO THAT SPECIFIC CLERK JUST TO MAKE AN ISSUE OF HER CHRISTIAN STANCE AND TURN THE THING INTO A MEDIA CIRCUS?

THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH ANY GROUP WORKING FOR CHANGE THAT GOES HAMMER AND TONG AGAINST THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH THEM IS THAT THEY SEEM TO BE SAYING, "I'M AS GOOD AS YOU IN THE MAJORITY (WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE!) BUT YOUR DISAGREEMENT PISSES ME OFF SO I'M GOING TO USE THE MEDIA TO GET PEOPLE TO CONDEMN YOU BECAUSE YOU SEEM TO HATE ME."

NO, DISAGREEMENT IS NOT HATE...UNTIL AN OFFENDED PARTY DECIDES IT IS AND WHIPS THE MEDIA INTO PUTTING THAT SPIN ON IT.

I DO NOT PERSONALLY CARE FOR LIPSTICK.
I WILL NOT BE FOUND SLAPPING THE FACE OF THOSE WHO WEAR IT, NOR DAMNING THEM TO AN ETERNAL HELL.
IF A LIPSTICK-LOVER DISCOVERS MY DISTASTE FOR LIPSTICK WILL HE/SHE SEE IT AS HATE?
I DON'T CARE FOR IT, BUT I DO NOT HATE THOSE WHO WEAR IT.
I DON'T HATE LIPSTICK, I MERELY DISAGREE IT HAS VALUE OR IS "PRETTY" OR IS NICE.
I'D NEVER BUY IT AS A GIFT NOR TAKE A JOB SELLING THE STUFF.
BUT I DO NOT HATE ANYTHING ABOUT IT, I ASSURE YOU.

CAREFUL HOW YOU LABEL FOLKS, ANY FOLKS, ALL FOLKS.
YOU CANNOT SEE INSIDE THEIR MINDS NOR HEARTS! 
YOU CAN ONLY ASSUME.
"ASSUMPTION BEGINS WITH 'ASS', AND THOSE WHO ASSUME WITHOUT PROOF RUN INTO THAT ASS AGAIN," AS ONE PROFESSOR USED TO TELL US.

THE CLERK, IF SHE HONESTLY DOES BELIEVE THAT SAME-SEX MARRIAGES ARE SOMETHING HER CHOSEN GOD FROWNS ON, WOULD NOT ALLOW, SHOULD HAVE EXCUSED HERSELF, WITHOUT "PREACHING", WITHOUT VISIBLE DISDAIN SINCE SHE WAS IN THE WORKPLACE.
SHE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN SOMEONE ELSE WHO FELT OKAY ABOUT ISSUING SUCH LICENSES AND MOVED TO ANOTHER ROOM PERHAPS.

OR, SHE SHOULD HAVE QUIT RIGHT THERE ON THE SPOT, WITHOUT SAYING A WORD TO THE COUPLE.

SHE COULD HAVE STOOD HER GROUND WITHOUT THE COMMOTION AND PRESS THIS HAS ATTRACTED.

BUT...BUT, THE COUPLES INVOLVED, THOSE REFUSED A LICENSE, COULD HAVE ALSO KEPT THIS FROM BECOMING WHAT IT IS NOW BY SIMPLY SAYING, "OH, I KNOW SOME CHRISTIANS DISAGREE WITH US, AND YOU HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO EXERCISE YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, SO GO GET US SOMEONE WHO WILL ISSUE A LICENSE."

HAD SHE REFUSED TO DO THAT, SURE, FIRE HER AND SUE HER UNTIL IT RAINS BULLFROGS!
SCREAM FOUL THEN...NOT WHEN SHE REFUSED ON HER RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, BUT WHEN SHE REFUSED TO ACCOMMODATE BY STEPPING ASIDE SO SOMEONE ELSE COULD ISSUE A LICENSE.

THERE WERE TWO WRONGS. 
TWO WRONGS WILL NEVER MAKE ONE RIGHT!

ALLOW EVERYONE THEIR SEXUAL PREFERENCE?
ABSOLUTELY!

ALLOW EVERYONE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, THEIR FREEDOM TO EXERCISE THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS?
ABSOLUTELY!

IT'S EQUALITY OR INEQUALITY FOR EVERYBODY...FOR GAYS AND FOR NON-GAYS, FOR CHRISTIANS AND FOR NON-CHRISTIANS, FOR COWBOYS AND FOR INDIANS!

DID THE CLERK IN QUESTION GET THAT JOB BEFORE THE STATE DECIDED TO ALLOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGES?
IF SO,SHE TOOK IT NOT EXPECTING TO FACE THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, RIGHT?
IF THAT'S THE CASE, SHE COULD BE AND SHOULD BE REASSIGNED SOMEHOW SO SHE DOESN'T DISRUPT THE MARRIAGE LICENSE TRADE THERE, BUT SHE SHOULD NOT BE FIRED UNLESS SHE REFUSED TO MOVE ASIDE AND LET SOMEONE ELSE ISSUE LICENSES.

SHE SHOULD ALSO BE FIRED IF SHE WAS HIRED AFTER THE FACT, KNOWING SHE WOULD HAVE TO ISSUE LICENSES TO PEOPLE WHOM HER FAITH WOULD NOT ALLOW HER, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, TO PUT HER SIGNATURE TO.
THAT SIGNATURE, SIGNING OFF ON THAT, WOULD NEGATE HER BELIEFS. 

TO SIGN HER NAME TO THAT DOCUMENT, TO HER AND TO ANYONE WHO HOLDS SUCH A BELIEF THAT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE IS CONDEMNED BY THEIR DEITY, WOULD BE THE SAME AS ASKING HER TO SAY "AMEN!".
IT WOULD BE THE SAME, TO HER, AS IF SHE WAS ASKED TO SIGN OFF ON A MURDER.

IF SHE TOOK THE JOB AFTER THE COURT'S RULING THAT FORCED KENTUCKY TO ISSUE SAME-SEX LICENSES THEN SHE KNEW THERE WOULD EVENTUALLY BE CONFLICT.
SHE SHOULD HAVE PASSED ON THAT PARTICULAR JOB.
GOT IT?

THE LGBT COMMUNITY SHOULD RECOGNIZE THE REALITY OF ANOTHER'S DEEPEST BELIEFS AND ACCEPT THAT DIFFERENCES WILL ALWAYS EXIST.
THEY HAVE FACED CONDEMNATION THEMSELVES AND HAVE NOT LIKED IT.

NO ONE DOES.

IT'S EQUALITY FOR ALL OR EQUALITY IS COMPLETELY OUT THE WINDOW!

WE KNOW THAT, IN AMERICA, THE CONSTITUTION IS THE BASIS FOR LAW.
RELIGIOUS RIGHTS ARE GUARANTEED BY THAT DOCUMENT AND ROUGHLY 70% THIS NATION CLAIMS TO BE CHRISTIANS IN 2015. 

HOW MANY WHO CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIANS SEE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE AS WRONG IS NOBODY'S BUSINESS.

NEITHER THE STATE NOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN REGULATE RELIGION...YET.

HOW MANY IN AMERICA WILL WANT A SAME-SEX LICENSE IS AN UNKNOWN.
ROUGHLY 2% OF AMERICANS "IDENTIFY" AS LGBT. 
IF THEY ALL WANT TO GET MARRIED, THAT'S WONDERFUL! 
CONGRATULATIONS!

BUT...SINCE 70% OF AMERICANS IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS CHRISTIANS, THAT MEANS THERE ARE LIKELY MILLIONS WHO WILL NEVER ACCEPT SAME-SEX MARRIAGE OR EVEN SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS.
SOME STATES PUT IT TO A VOTE, THE PEOPLE VOTED, THEN THEIR VOTES WERE NEGATED BY SOME FEDERAL JUDGE.

DON'T EXPECT APPLAUSE AND ROSE PETALS STREWN IN YOUR PATH, ESPECIALLY IN STATES THAT HAVE VOTED AGAINST THIS AND THEN BEEN FORCED TO ALLOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGES.
WILL THAT, SHOULD THAT STOP YOU FROM LOVING WHOMEVER YOU LOVE?
NO!

I HAVE READ TOO MANY COMMENTS BY THE LGBT COMMUNITY BEMOANING HAVING CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE "CRAMMED DOWN OUR THROATS" TO IMAGINE ANYONE WANTING A MARRIAGE LICENSE WOULD BE ACCEPTING OF A FEDERAL JUDGE RULING YOU CAN'T HAVE ONE BASED ON RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF THE MAJORITY OF AMERICAN VOTERS.

THE SAME FEELINGS EXIST IN THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY ABOUT CRAMMING THINGS DOWN UNWILLING THROATS.
THEY FEEL THAT THEIR "CIVIL RIGHTS" ARE ALSO BEING VIOLATED, THAT THEIR VOTES ON STATE ISSUES CAN ALWAYS BE TOSSED OUT, AND THAT THEIR RIGHT TO EXERCISE THEIR RELIGION IS BEING UNDERMINED.

EVERYBODY IS HAVING A ROUGH TIME WITH THIS.
EVERYBODY HAD A ROUGH TIME WHEN IT WAS ILLEGAL FOR A WHITE PERSON TO MARRY A "COLORED" PERSON, WHICH MEANT ANYONE WHO WASN'T WHITE.

FACTS ARE FACTS AND EACH SIDE OF THIS DISAGREEMENT WILL STAND FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN, AS WELL BOTH SIDES SHOULD. 

THAT SHOULD NOT TRANSLATE TO HATE FROM EITHER SIDE, SHOULD IT?

 "The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot ban same-sex marriage, thereby requiring all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples."
HERE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS OVERSTEPPED ITS BOUNDS.
SINCE THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT LISTED NOR ANY AMENDMENT TO ANYTHING IN THE ORIGINAL BILL OF RIGHTS ABOUT MARRIAGE, PERIOD. IT IS LEFT UP TO THE STATES TO DECIDE.

"Before the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Oct. 6, 2014, declining to hear cases on same-sex marriage, 31 states had either constitutional or statutory provisions that explicitly defined marriage as between a man and a woman and just 19 states and the District of Columbia allowed same-sex marriage. "

IN STATES THAT HAVE DECIDED NOT TO CONTEST HAVING TO ISSUE THOSE LICENSES, LET NO ONE BE TURNED AWAY.

IN THOSE SAME STATES, LET NO ONE THINK FOR A SECOND THAT THEY CAN "LEGISLATE" RELIGION, OR ONE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

WE CAN RESPECT EACH OTHER'S DIFFERENCES OR WE CAN SHED BLOOD OVER THEM.

WE CAN SCREAM FOR TOLERANCE, BUT IF WE DON'T SHOW TOLERANCE WHAT HYPOCRITES WE ARE!

THERE WERE TWO WRONGS HERE...
THIS KENTUCKY INCIDENT BEGAN AS A DIFFERENCE OF BELIEF SYSTEMS.

ON ONE SIDE, A COUPLE BELIEVED THEY HAD A RIGHT TO A MARRIAGE LICENSE.
INDEED THEY DID BECAUSE A FEDERAL JUDGE SAID SO!
WHEN THEY CAME UP AGAINST A CHRISTIAN WHO REFUSED TO ISSUE ONE, THEY SHOULD HAVE DEMANDED A LICENSE FROM SOMEONE ELSE, BUT RESPECTED THAT WOMAN'S FAITH.

ON THE OTHER HAND, A CHRISTIAN TRYING TO LIVE WHAT HE/SHE BELIEVES, BUT IN A POSITION WHERE THAT CONFLICTS WITH SECULAR/STATE LAW, WILL JUST HAVE TO NEVER TAKE A JOB THAT DEMANDS THEY DO ANYTHING THAT IS AGAINST THOSE CHRISTIAN BELIEFS.
TO TAKE A JOB THAT WILL DEMAND YOU THROW OUT YOUR BELIEFS WOULD NEVER QUITE FIT ANYWAY, WOULD IT?

THAT CERTAINLY NARROWS DOWN POSSIBLE JOBS.

WHAT A MESS WE'RE IN IN AMERICA!

 SEEMS LIKE EVERYONE IS AGAINST SOMETHING AND SOMEONE TAKES OFFENCE TO DIFFERENCES AND WE GET DAYS OR WEEKS OF THE MEDIA TRYING TO ESCALATE DISAGREEMENTS INTO RIOTS OR KILLINGS OR STREET WARS!
WE CAN GO ON ALLOWING THE MEDIA TO FAN THE FLAMES  OF THE "RACE WARS", "CLASS WARS", "PARTY WARS", "GANG WARS", "GENDER WARS", "GENERATIONAL WARS" AND ALL OTHER WARS OR WE CAN DO THIS...

AGREE TO DISAGREE.

WE DO DISAGREE ON SOME THINGS, ALL OF US.
SO WHAT?
THAT'S THE WAY THE COOKIE CRUMBLES.
THAT'S LIFE!

WE ARE EACH DIFFERENT, THANKS BE!
HOW BORING IF ALL WERE THE SAME!

NOW WHAT?
ACCEPT THAT WE'RE DIFFERENT AND GET ON WITH LIFE, NOT EXPECTING TO BE ACCEPTED BY ALL, TO BE LOVED BY ALL, OR EVEN LIKED BY ALL.
SO WHAT IF OTHERS DISAGREE WITH ANY OF YOUR BELIEFS?
OTHERS CAN'T ROB US OF OUR CONVICTIONS!
HANG ON TO THEM, WHATEVER THEY ARE AND JUST LIVE LIFE!

OR...LET'S ALL GO GET KNIVES AND ROCKS AND GUNS AND KILL EACH OTHER OFF?

I HOPE THIS ENDS IN KENTUCKY.
NEITHER "SIDE" APPEARS READY TO JUST LET THE OTHER BE WHO THEY ARE , ACCEPT THAT NOT EVERYONE WILL AGREE AND GET ON WITH LIFE.

PERHAPS THE GREATER SORROW IS HOW THE STATES HAVE LOST THEIR BATTLES FOR ALL STATES' RIGHT TO DECIDE ANYTHING, AND HOW A MAJORITY'S VOTES DON'T MEAN A HILL OF BEANS ANYMORE.

BOTH "SIDES" SHOULD WAKE UP TO THE REAL ISSUE HERE... HOW THE STATES HAVE BEEN ROBBED OF JUST ABOUT ANY POWER TO MAKE LAWS FOR THEIR OWN CITIZENS AND HOW ALL OF US HAVE LOST THE POWER OF OUR VOTES.



_____________________

Addendum:

"On May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples should have the right to marry. The ruling took effect mid-June and same-sex marriages were performed in California for a short period of time before a ballot initiative challenging the decision was certified in late summer. 

Proposition 8 proposed a state constitutional amendment that defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. 
It passed in November 2008, again banning same-sex marriage in California. 

Proposition 8 was challenged in early 2009, but the California Supreme Court upheld the law in May 2009. 

In August 2010, a federal district judge ruled that the Proposition 8 ban on same-sex marriages violated the equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution. 

The decision was appealed and enforcement (that would allow same-sex marriages to be performed) was delayed until the case could be heard by the federal appeals court. 

In February 2012, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the earlier district court decision that declared Proposition 8 invalid. The 2-1 decision reinstated the right to marriage for same-sex couples in California. 

The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and enforcement was delayed until the court decided."
 
I  USE THIS AS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW MUCH POWER STATES HAVE GIVEN UP AND HOW LITTLE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE MATTERS IN AMERICA ANYMORE. 
THIS IS NOT ABOUT MARRIAGE OR GAY RIGHTS.
IT'S A SHOW OF FORCE BY A POWER-CRAZED, TOO BIG FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

WE VOTE INSIDE OUR STATES, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANCELS ALL OUR VOTES.

WE VOTE, VOTES VOIDED.

WE DECIDE A STATE ISSUE, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INTERFERES, DICTATES  STATE LAW.

AND WE ALLOW IT.

THAT MAKES US EITHER INSANE OR COWARDS.

WHICH IS IT?