I’m pretty sure you’re wrong. She can step aside and let someone else sign that document. But, to refuse the document and to refuse the marriage (which I am personally against as well), is tantamount to the government endorsing a specific religion and that is a bad thing.
umm no... The government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This means that the government shall not establish an official religion, nor shall it favor one religion over another so therefore when the SCOTUS recently ruled, they were directly discriminating against the christian religion. Also btw, the way our government is SUPPOSED to work is that either the states' bicameral legislature or the federal bicameral legislature makes the laws the SCOTUS decides if they are constituional.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!
God decides marriage, not the gov't.
She will obey the King of kings, which is 100% more important than "gov't endorsing religion".
 September 2, 2015 at 8:54am
Nope. If this were a private business the clerk was working in, I’d back the clerk up 100%. But because it’s the government she is working for, she must leave her religion at home else we have a government endorsement of religion and that is not good. We must maintain that separation as our Founders stated.
 September 2, 2015 at 8:53am
She is 100% correct here. While I am a religious person and do not agree with same-sex marriage, when you allow a government office to engage in religious actions you trampling on the separation of Church and State and that is a very bad thing. Especially the religious should understand what happens when government endorses any specific religion — just look at history.
There is no such thing as separation of church and state. It appears no where in the U.S. Constituition. The term does however appear in another Constitution...the Russian Constitution. The phrase was first coined in a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1801 affirming their right to be free of government interference in the practice of their Baptist Faith. Fast forward to 1947 when Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black made mention of that phrase in his Everson vs. Board of Education ruling. Why?? because he hated Catholics and he was trying to find anyway possible for the government to not give any money to Catholic schools despite the fact they had a superior track record in educating students. So now we have generations of people, including yourself that things that separation of church and state is a fact...it is not. What is fact is the the Establishment Clause.
KTurn16 is correct - the separation of "church and state" is a concept referenced in letters as being "implicit but not stated" in the Constitution.
 July 28, 2015 at 8:43am
She’s just another turd in the toilet bowl of progressivism who is unable to call a spade a spade while sitting in her ivory tower looking down upon WE THE PEOPLE shouting, “Let y’all eat cake!” Heads up, Mika, heads up . . .
 July 21, 2015 at 8:29am
C’mon, Blaze! You used to be above this crap! As much as I dislike Franken, he stated what he did in the name of comedy. Trump obviously did not. Did you get into bed with the HuffPo?
 July 17, 2015 at 8:32am
Has anyone checked into why he sports a muslim-style beard? Is it possible there are ties there that haven’t been thought of/investigated?
Absolutely...give him some novocain with a knuckle sandwich...
You got that right! He wouldn't have any teeth left to fix huh!
Yes...it would be interesting to see the dentist...in traction!
I' ll second that.
I used to come on Blaze frequently, watched Glenn from the start. There used to be a great group of informed people on here, most of what I see today are ignorant people who's first and only answer is kicking someone's teeth in. Use your brains. Educate yourself before you comment. As we say in the Military don't just complain bring an answer. Well if not this then what? How would you go about extracting a tooth without the child flailing about and causing serious harm to herself? Oh let me guess you would have knocked her out completely? Well then you have no idea the risks of anesthesia. General anesthesia carries risks, and to do it for a tooth on a child? Which is worse, the possibility of death/brain damage, or being frightened for a few minutes? Which actually if the NO2 was running the child probably wont remember anyway. I have had many dental procedures with NO2 and don’t remember squat! If you have been on the Blaze long enough you have seen at least one story of a girl who died due to anesthesia in a dentists office. With today's technology semiconscious sedation (NO2) with a papoose is the way to do it safely. The equivalent to your ignorant statement would be to electrocute me for using a defibrillator on you when your heart stops. That F'n hurts and is scary as all hell. Use your brain for more than spewing violence. PS I am NOT a Dentist, so I'm not just sticking up for my own.
@Navydoc2008 – you’re wrong on several points. 1st. Most dental procedures such as having a tooth pulled only require numbing of the area and a topical application on the gums to blunt the sting of the needle. 2nd. Most dentists have experience dealing with children and will delay or cancel the procedure if the child’s behavior poses a problem ie., risk vs. risk. Further, the parent’s presence also has a calming effect on the kids. If the parents are the problem, then there's procedures for that too. Third, kids are more resilient than you think they are, I remember getting fillings at 10 years of age. I was scared but I just accepted that it had to be done. Fourth, the use of a papoose board is a restraint. That is its sole function. It’s a frightening experience to be placed in one and know that you are completely defenseless, helpless. Now imagine a 8 year old having to deal with being strapped down and no mommy or daddy for moral support….how could this have turned out any other way. Fifth, it is part of the design of policy to ban parents from escorting staying with their kids – precisely because of the parent’s reaction to the restraint. It is arrogance on the part of the dental staff who attempt to justify that policy.
Finally, you need to lighten up on your reaction to the comments about the dentist’s teeth. It’s just a verbal release of outrage. Most rational people would not actually assaul the dentist - for legal reasons anyway...
 June 19, 2015 at 9:01am
Wait. He’s lived there for 46 years but the box he founds claims the guy inside died in 2008?????
 February 10, 2015 at 9:06am
This is nothing new. It was reported a number of years ago that ‘smart phones’ CAN and DO turn the microphone on periodically with NO notification to the user. While technology is good, despots controlling technology will eventually enslave the entire world population.
January 16, 2015 at 9:12am
Underground government tunneling. They have been doing this for years. There is an entire complex of underground tunnels, quite advanced, that connect all major cities. It’s where the government will scurry to when disaster strikes our surface shortly.
January 13, 2015 at 8:39am
I stated in 2008, and I still believe today, obama will remain in his president’s roll … the next election will be suspended due to civil unrest and the “need” to not have a change in power. That is why we are continually being divided; rich vs. poor, business vs. employee, white vs. black, Christian vs. muslim … divide, divide, divide … and then conquer. It’s coming . . .
January 13, 2015 at 8:35am
False flag alert. Too damn many coincidences anymore to believe a damn thing happens as the “news” reports it. It’s WAY too convenient that this happened to help drum up support to control our ‘free’ internet.
November 20, 2014 at 9:30am
There is actually much more to it than just calories. All calories are NOT equal. If you have not yet decided that you have all the answers and know more than anyone else, watch the documentary “Fed Up”. It’s very well done and explains much in our obesity epidemic.
 October 8, 2014 at 6:01pm
At least in this one the clothes of those left behind were not neatly folder in a pile. That was simply insane.
October 1, 2014 at 8:53am
How does someone that Trump is not following get a tweet to him? In my understanding of Twitter, your tweets are ONLY seen by those that are following you. Am I mistaken?
 September 30, 2014 at 8:57am
There are, however, some things that we can do that DO make sense both from a conservation standpoint as well as a monetary standpoint to the individual/corporation because we just did it ….
Depending upon the state you reside in and any incentives available to “go green”, you can change your lighting from incandescent/flourescent to LED. We just changed 26 fixtures, each containing 4 32 watt bulbs each, to LED fixtures (2′x4′) that provide more light, and whiter more natural light, all for under $2200.00 installed. Our breakeven will be in about 3 years. There are 5 year warranties on the lights and fixtures. That seems to make perfect sense to me.
Because of this, I’ve begun calculating payback on switching incandescents in my home to LEDs as well and it seems we can achieve a less than 2 year payback with that. Not cheapo LEDs, mind you, but quality ones that DO have 5 year replacement warranties on them. This is both for bulbs as well as canned lighting and they look pretty darn good.
Anything that I can invest in and receive a 2 or 3 year payback in seems financially good.
 September 10, 2014 at 9:27am
I hope we never get to this caste system they have or the same will come here.
[-2] September 8, 2014 at 9:38pm
What does a trillion dollars look like? Just ask Donald Rumsfeldt and members of the Bush administration who “misplaced” 2.3 of them the day before 9/11.
Hillary's State Department 'lost' some also as I recall.
Without the scandals, Hillary has no record.
Without Bill, Hillary is just another crooked lawyer.
 September 5, 2014 at 5:16pm
I predict a LOT of taxpayers are going to use this exact same defense when/if audited. It will be interesting how judges will rule on it because if there is no incriminating evidence, i.e. the person deals in cash, how can a crime be proven?