An interesting perspective (calling for resistance): “Clerk Davis is constrained by her civic duty is as an elected official in Kentucky, sworn to uphold the Constitution. As a lower civil magistrate, there is only one course of action – to refuse to issue the marriage license to the same-sex couple BECAUSE the federal court order requiring her to issue the license is based upon a wholly illegitimate decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that same-sex couples are constitutionally entitled to marry. Although some have tried to muddy the waters as to her reasons for resisting, this case is not a matter of her conscience or her personal religious scruples. It is about her civic duty as a civil government official. She resists illegality not because her conscience is offended, but rather it is her conscience and religious beliefs that gives her the courage to stand against lawlessness. She is well aware that she could face the court’s sanction for disobedience of a court order, perhaps including civil or criminal contempt of court.” http://conservativetribune.com/clerk-must-fight-same-sex
September 4, 2015 at 10:02am
Don’t bury your lede: render unto Caesar his/her/its marriage license. The grammar lesson was unnecessary, especially as your opening remark. English language needs a gender-neutral singular pronoun and “they/them/their” works just fine, even if it annoys prescriptive grammar police. BTW, dm, you have a tendency to write in sentence fragments. So what? I understand your meaning and know that you are getting your point across to your readers.
As I wrote before: “That said, if the clerk is willing to lose their job to make a statement, then more power to them! Welcome to Civil Disobedience 101, class will start now.”
And… now she is in jail and the license was issued by the deputy clerk. Kim stood for what she believed in and paid a minor cost, relatively speaking, for that statement. More power to her!
Back to my original post, who made this decision and got away with it in the first place? Why did they get away with it? I’m genuinely curious to know.
“In 2004, clerks who violated the law to perform same-sex marriages were celebrated. In 2009, Gov. Jerry Brown was a civil rights hero for refusing to perform one of his essential duties. Yet in 2015, the Kim Davises of our country need to watch out for people with pitchforks who cannot tolerate even a pebble threatening the Goliath of the new marriage regime.”
Even though I am not a supporter of licensed same-sex marriage, I am inclined to agree with Carly Fiorina here – a public servant should do their job. That said, if the clerk is willing to lose their job to make a statement, then more power to them! Welcome to Civil Disobedience 101, class will start now.
Here’s a question I have that isn’t often discussed: what gave county clerks the authority to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the first place?
We keep hearing about the 14th Amendment and “equal protection,” but, even though it’s not currently popular or fashionable, a gay male and lesbian female, or any future LGBT-QIAS+ member in between, have every right (equal) to marry a member of the opposite sex as do a hetero-normative, cis-gendered, male or female.
I know. It’s all about *love* now, even though love is not the sole consideration or a secure foundation for family building anyway, but I digress. On that note, individuals with same-sex attractions who chose traditional marriage to have and raise a family are fascinating and admirable people – I applaud them.
The next question, of course, is: why is the government even in the marriage licensing business? Also, how can we limit “love” to only two people? Unintended consequences – or, are they?
The only rules that make sense to me, from a small government perspective, are to keep biological parents on birth certificates (to prove heritage/origin) and everything else is personal and/or contractual.
“a public servant should do their job”
Well, first of all, that would be “his/her” job, not "their" job. You are referring to Kim, and there is only one of her.
The main issue is, however, which should prevail — man’s law or God’s law?
In addition, when she took the job, there was no Supreme Court Ruling on this issue, so the conditions of employment have changed without her consent, request, or involvement. That affects the situation as well.
 September 1, 2015 at 10:30am
“Eric Holder is still in control of the ‘Justice’ Dept. and has successfully halted cases of FEDERAL VOTER FRAUD and dismissed them so NOT doing an investigation or even reading Ms. Clinton her Rights on the matter is a forgone conclusion.”
You must mean Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder left the office of the US Attorney General back in April of this year.
August 25, 2015 at 11:59am
Rant(ed): “Cruz is ineligible, and even if he were he has ties to Goldman Sachs and the Bushes.” … “Rand Paul is probably the only guy worth voting for out of the gigantic field presented to us.” … “I always argue with facts I can back up and prove.”
What facts? Cruz is ineligible? Nope, many high profile legal minds have already laid out the case that Cruz is indeed eligible – just as Obama would still have been even had he been born in Kenya. Ties to Goldman Sachs and the Bushes? What’s your point there, exactly? It’s quite meaningless even if true. You will not make it as a candidate without money and every candidate will have corporate financial support of some sort – even Bernie Sanders (unions will be his top contributors). Rand Paul is a decent candidate, and I like him quite a bit, but he lacks the broad appeal that would make him a likely nomination or general election winner.
I was running mini-sprints on a track near my work with my little man just the other day and told him to always run, as fast as he can, well past the finish line. When he asked me why, I showed him Billy Mills 1964 10K Tokyo Olympic Gold Medal finish and then several other related YT videos. This video will now be a part of that “never quit” and “it’s not over until it’s over” speech. A loss like that isn’t quickly forgotten. I barely missed a state championship win over a stutter-step on the last hurdle, we were both off our steps and not ready to switch our leads. Even though you may be exhausted, it’s always worth it to put in that extra little ounce of effort!
That simply don't work in OUR [LOOOOOOOOOOOOOZER-[D]ADMINISTRATION!!
 August 24, 2015 at 1:04pm
Always the “do as I say, not as I do” philosophy with these peeps!
May 30, 2015 at 7:37am
MSH, the most important aspect of what I wrote in my initial reply was this: “Without trying to get money or other *tangible* benefit by use of one of a few specific medals or badges (not just the uniform) it’s not really a case of ‘stolen valor.’ People who care about the difference really should look up and read the Stolen Valor Act of 2013.”
Wearing the uniform AND claiming you served, as you mentioned, even when you did not, still doesn’t make it a case (legally speaking) of stolen valor. That said, please feel free to call the fakers out and film their stupidity for all the world to see.
 May 30, 2015 at 7:24am
RP, you have it backwards, the puppy will get MOUNTAINS of potential GF attention!
Yea.... the puppy-MUCH!! You....not-so-much... .
I knew that our relationhship was waining....when the dog gave me a hug&kiss... and she shook my hand. Sooooo... I dumped the girlfriend and gotteth a dog (or-two..)... much better. Now, when I get home at 3-in-duh-mormin' the dog doesn't say: "Where the he!! have you been?!".
April 15, 2015 at 1:37am
VCV just doesn’t get it even though the history is plain to see. The legal challenges we are debating are a direct result of the issue being made political by those who wanted same sex marriage in the first place. Conservatives did not start this and it isn’t a question of “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” The pendulum was pushed by same sex marriage advocates and the legal battles (and the recent rash of state sponsored RFRA laws) are quite obviously the pushback.
 April 15, 2015 at 1:12am
The Blaze wrote: “…Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the 2010 ban was voluntarily as part of efforts to encourage progress in nuclear talks.
“The announcement of the sales has prompted critics of the Iran deal to be even more skeptical.”
That’s funny – Sergei Lavrov was the same Russian diplomat Hillary Clinton handed the “reset” button to. As a reminder, Hillary’s staff chose the word “peregruzka,” which means “overloaded” or “overcharged.” I guess the Russians just hit that same “reset” button when they want to make some more money from countries we “overcharge” and “overload” us in the process.
 April 15, 2015 at 12:40am
Fakers wearing a combat uniform even though they’ve never served is nothing new but I don’t get a few things:
One, why do fakers so often flip up the collar? That’s usually only done when wearing armor (flack vest w/ plates or simple plate carriers).
Two, his US flag is in the middle of the velcro on his right arm and it is always supposed to be worn on the pocket flap at the top. How do fakers mess this one up? It’s too easy to get right. Search out the regs online, dummies!
Three, he could simply be a PVT and wear no insignia but if he were serving he *would* have to wear his name on his right side – whether he was out for a quick bite on the way home or not.
Four, where’s his t-shirt? The ACU blouse will rub you raw without a shirt on underneath it – AND nobody wears ACU top w/o a shirt. Maybe that’s why he flipped up his collar.
Five, this is one of his most egregious errors IMHO, he *is* wearing the “U.S. ARMY” patch on his left, on the chest. It’s in the right place BUT if you’re not a service member then that’s the ONE patch you really *should* take off – and take off the flag while you’re at it!
 April 15, 2015 at 12:29am
I’m sure this guy just wanted some attention, probably a few “thanks for your service” comments, attention from girls, and perhaps a free drink or two. Without trying to get money or other *tangible* benefit by use of one of a few specific medals or badges (not just the uniform) it’s not really a case of “stolen valor.” People who care about the difference really should look up and read the Stolen Valor Act of 2013.
BTW, “fatigues” are a Vietnam era uniform and haven’t been around since the Battle Dress Uniform (BDU) replaced them in the 1980s. This fellow was wearing what replaced the BDU, the Army Combat Uniform (ACU), and was doing it poorly. He was wearing a unit patch, the U.S. ARMY patch, and an American flag patch.
 April 3, 2015 at 10:48am
“A press release published by the church said that the visit lasted 20 minutes, confirming that the topics discussed centered on ‘families, immigration, humanitarian aid, and religious freedom and non-discrimination.’”
What could you possibly discuss from this list of topics, with any kind of real or meaningful depth, in 20 minutes?
20 minutes minus the time it took to listen to a Charlie Rich song to set the mood of the meeting.
Not with the shallowness of the preezy.
It's not immigration. It's an invasion.
"What could you possibly discuss from this list of topics, with any kind of real or meaningful depth, in 20 minutes?"
Obama, "Suck it."
Mormons, "We have some legitimate concerns about the policies of... "
Obama, "Suck it."
Mormons, "But, Mr President.. we seriously think this will impact...
Obama, "Suck it,"
(repeat as such for 20 minutes).
Probably a typical Obama "negotiation" session. He comes into the room and tells those present what he wants, tells them to do it, or else he will wield his pen and executive authority and do it himself.
Ker: Mr. Script writer gave him a condensed , 20 minute version .
Im sure all the topics mentioned came up. Being the great dark lord obama would after all rub salt in the wound.
"MuahahahaHHAHahahah i am using tax dollars to fund people like gosnell to cut the spines of living, screaming for help, late term babies."
You know, his standard off the prompter remarks.
Well, good grief. Maybe he was in a hurry passing through on his way to the great money tree in California.
President Barack Obama held a closed-door meeting with leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Thursday night.... no surprise as it is well known this church does everything behind closed doors.
20mins? I was thinking the same thing. Nothing could have been discussed of any meaning in 20mins. Obama knows it all, so not even a prophet could enlighten his majesty. Now I know why President Thomas S.Monson said that he was saving his energy for General Conference which starts tomorrow. He truly is a prophet of God. :)
Followed by trial for High Treason.
March 27, 2015 at 11:27am
Here’s what I see: two left leaning comicbook (graphic novel) creators, one Catholic and one Atheist, who have both created books on Jesus recently (“American Jesus” by Mark Millar and “Punk Rock Jesus” by Sean Murphy).
Murphy is aggresively atheist (a type of atheist often erroneously referred to as a “positive atheist”) and often bashes belief and believers, while Millar’s work is surprisingly respectful to the spirit of Christianity (even if not Catholicism specifically), but they both are politically outspoken and consistently rail against American “conservatives.”
This is what I wish GB and the Blaze would see – these guys are part of the culture war GB and the Blaze are fighting, but they haven’t quite caught up to this part yet.
March 9, 2015 at 11:42am
VCV wrote: “100 %. incorrect. Gay marriage has become a POLITICAL issue thanks to conservatives. Morons like Carson – have brought these questions on themselves. I know this is the “Can’t connect the dots” crowd, but really if you’re REALLY TIRED of having all the GAY 24/7 shoved in your faces – STOP BRINGING COURT CHALLENGES to the gay marriage issue. Now isn’t that simple?”
Yeah DB, STOP bringing court challenges to attempts to CHANGE laws! Or something. You conservatives STARTED this… by CALLING OTHERS OUT on it!! How DARE YOU bring up an IMPORTANT SOCIAL DEBATE in the legal realm… when SOMEBODY ELSE got there first!!! TAKE THAT to the court… 100%!!!! (what’s with all the CAPS, btw?)
VCV just doesn't get it even though the history is plain to see. The legal challenges we are debating are a direct result of the issue being made political by those who wanted same sex marriage in the first place. Conservatives did not start this and it isn't a question of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" The pendulum was pushed by same sex marriage advocates and the legal battles (and the recent rash of state sponsored RFRA laws) are quite obviously the pushback.
 March 7, 2015 at 6:32pm
MR: “Kerb, you are correct. Fornication is a Biblical justification for divorce (you can’t seriously believe you know the Bible better than I).”
You are the one claiming superior knowledge (I didn’t make that claim) and yet you didn’t even bother to bring up the exception written into the very Bible verse you cited (Mathew 19.9). Normally, I would call it a simple oversight and give the benefit of doubt, but if you know the Bible so well, as you are claiming, then it is more likely an egregious error or a lie of omission.
You left out several very important concepts in your original response, which I added, and then you yet again overlooked the most important one – repentence and forgiveness. You can sin (divorce for the wrong reasons), repent, and ask for forgiveness. That was my final and likely most important point on the matter.
“…the Bible is open to interpretation. That’s why there are 100s of denominations and millions [...] of different interpretations of what the Bible means: as many as there are Christians.”
Liberty is why you see so much variety. Yes, there is room for interpretation, but we have the right to interpret and choose. I will defend your right to choose, your liberty, because I want that right as well and know it is a basic, natural human right.
“…a person can have an opinion different from yours about the Bible and still be a ModerateRepublican.”
Correction: I believe you just might be a moderate republican – the modern progressive type.
 March 6, 2015 at 5:33pm
MR wrote: “But what if you know that the couple, let’s say they are heterosexual, have been having sex before marriage, given for example they are living together. Wouldn’t going to the wedding be supporting their sinful lifestyle? What if it’s their second marriage? The Bible considers that adultery (Mathew 19.9). Wouldn’t going to the wedding be condoning adultery? Mark 10:12 “And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” Since the Biblical penalty for adultery is death, should I go to the wedding or do I kill them?”
Here are a few concepts for MR, or anybody silly enough to take MR’s ideas seriously, to look up: fornication as a justification for divorce, Jesus’s mention that a man and a woman should become one flesh (not a homosexual couple), the differences between a secular society’s ideas of marriage (a civil ceremony) and God’s conception and treatment of marriage (a marriage rooted in faith and the commandments of God), and finally – repentence and forgiveness.
Does anybody here at the Blaze, in the comment sections, believe that ModerateRepublican is a republican, moderate, libertarian, or even mildly conservative? I’d say MR is clearly a full blown *Progressive* with a capital P.
 February 11, 2015 at 2:49pm
I watched the TMZ video yesterday before I commented, and then today – just now, and both times I heard “well, (their/they’re) right” and wondered why Clint Eastwood didn’t phrase it “well, [it's] their right” if that is indeed what he meant. The response “well, their right” makes very little sense. In short, it was likely just a hasty and sloppy answer… and it left him and his words wide open to interpretation.
Now, in response to the alleged leftism of the Blaze and Glenn Beck… what in the world are you talking about? Please, cite examples.
For the sake of argument, I’ll take your perspective, just for a moment, that many stories on the Blaze may seem to take a more moderate or “leftist” perspective and then ask this simple question: what is likely to get you more views (unique visitors), page refreshes, and responses (like what we’re doing here now)?
It is very possible that a middle of the road, or even “leftist” seeming slant, to news or opinion posts such as this is much more likely to get the widest number of views/reads, reposts and forwards, and comments. Does that necessarily mean the Blaze and/or Glenn Beck is leftist?
I say “No” and would add that I’ve often done this very thing on my own Facebook page to avoid an outright argument with one of my siblings who is very left-leaning and quite reactionary. In my experience, it’s actually the best way to get the most interesting and lively conversations out of family and friends.