Hello bront:

So you DO have a liberal streak.............

excon

If homosexuality is a mental disorder, it is, and no homosexual orientation exists, then same sex marriage is a lie and King a George wasn't so bad.

the law doesn't say that Gays can be married to each other, the fabrication of discrimination can be directed to a couple based on man and woman. legal Precedent dictates only that a gay man can be married to a lesbian woman as test for discrimination and that this process must be stopped to be discrimination based by marriage. Precedent and basic principle makes a claim that a discrimination is being performed, a civil law suit can be filed legal or not, so when a witness objects based on discrimination a correction might be guided by impartial judicial separation. A transfer of the burden of legal titling on a new Likelihood was not part of a description of discrimination, the clerks has a responsibility as only witnessing an even at a job, justification is the defending an ongoing likelihood under Constitutional common defense. As this accusation becomes a test of GOD to hold political office. Can the state offer a license for Binivir? As this is an impartial declaration to a public likelihood of two men? Note the clerk is not placed in harms way of the criminal charge of perjury as state licensing is an official document of law.

Hello again, A:

Shoulda, woulda, coulda... You don't wanna answer because you KNOW the people in your camp are WRONG, WRONG, and even WRONGER than that..

Unless, of course, you'd LIKE to DISAVOW the American Revolution.

excon

Nothing upjmpksted makes any sense, because gays had civil unions. They want to tarnjsh marriage and pollute thr sanctity. In less thsn a year, SSM will be a new virus that was extinguished.

These so called perks, are not for the title marriage. they are rights granted under Constitutional separation of church and state delegating responsibilities that only a creator by declaration of independence by the Union of a man and woman, as creators of new life and citizens of a State already described and witnessed publicly entitled as a method to legally regulating this specific Constitutional states of a union.

Outlaw60,

I love the 1st Amendment just about as it applies by Amendment to United States Constitution.

Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Is a disclaimer to an inalienable truth and one Constitutional fact only. Legislation falls by basic principle upon the state to which Congress represents by assignment of their political office by his/her states voters.

This is in fact is an intellectual way to describe voters have legal obligation that come with the power to vote on political matters of public affairs, for any congressional representative to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution is constitutional legally link to the state of which they reside.

Fact one: The United States Constitution describes a creation of impartial judicial separation, so any Amendment to this document only effects the weight of judicial impartiality.

Fact two: The law which regulates the prohibiting of religious free exercise thereof, comes directly form the Declaration of Independence preamble. Not United States Constitution, so the First Amendment to United States Constitution is not an Amendment made to Declarations of first introduced fact regulating Independence. As in life we are granted liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty is not freedom the basic principle which separates these two words is self-value. Prohibiting the exercise of the lack of self-value is impossible by law, and must be conducted by a state of basic separation under the direction of three things. 1. Basic principle 2. Legal precedent. 3. Impartiality. These three things can be united by state consistently producing an outcome describe generically as separation.

Fact three: The First Amendment is a law. All law can be legally tested in any Court of law. This is among many things a foundation for the construction of Constitutional international law. To which democratic politics may have compromised some basic principles. Hoping to find which laws had or would be broken by civil action without offering a common defense to the general welfare, as it measure of Constitutional law carries a dollar value when performed legally.

All that aside it is nice to see you weighing in on the matter of public likelihoods. Sorry for the long read hope it is understandable. For the record Excon the clerk is imposing religious belief on the Constitutional separation of church and state. The republic considers this a distress call for help. As a clerk is incapable of performing a separation of church and state, be it male or female on their own behalf legally.