The GOP Presidential Debate on CNN

Now, I typically try to refrain from bias and attempt to provide a fair view on topics, but the following quick synopsis of the GOP debate on CNN may contain bias.

After watching the Undercard debate and the primary debate, I noticed one major talking point throughout: war. Even with questions more unrelated to war, it would be brought back up. Also, foreign policy was brought up numerous times, with what seemed to be more than half the of the debate. Now, foreign policy is important, but currently, we face many domestic issues, which were hardly brought up. The issues that were brought up, such as Planned Parenthood, were highly erroneous in their discussions over it. With not a single mention of other issues, such as poverty not mentioned.

What we witnessed here, was yet another debacle of a debate for those concerned with legitimate issues. Hopefully later debates can address this issue, but the focus and push on war by the Republican presidential hopefuls is very concerning.

Ms. Davis and Religious Liberty

Is her first amendment rights being violated?

The short answer: no. Her actions is reminiscent of the infamous segregationist George Wallace, as one New York Times article said," 'In a way, she is out George Wallace-ing George Wallace,' said Howard M. Wasserman..."( http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0 ). In short, though, as was the case for George, you cannot defy a court order. Also, in the case for her religious liberty, she is unable, and shouldn't be able to, use it as an excuse.

She is a worker for the government, a government which makes promises to the people it administers to - which, recently, has gone to include the legalization of gay marriage; thus, to hold true to this promise, the government, and those that work for it, needs to uphold what it has decreed - otherwise the government will have lied. Therefore, regardless of religious beliefs, in a public, government building, you must treat people as the government commands which you are representative of. If you were in a private church, the story is much different. You would not have to administer a wedding or something of similar nature.

In conclusion, what Ms. Davis is committing has no legal precedent to in order to validate her actions, but plenty of precedent to invalidate it, that she must follow the government's order as a worker of it. It's simple. It's easy. It makes sense.