On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:36:16 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/5/2015 5:57 PM, Justan Olphart wrote:
On 9/5/2015 1:51 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 13:38:53 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:56:33 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 11:34 AM, wrote:

The only reason why this is a religious issue is because she made it
one.

bingo.

I agree, if she simply kept her agenda to herself and dealt with it as
a legal matter, she would not be issuing marriage certificates and the
only people who could fix that would be the legislature. They are
"off" until next year.

I still say, there is enough ambiguity in the statute now that any
marriage in Ky could be challenged. They might win or lose but there
is enough there to bring the case. The clerk has the right not to
create that situation.




Part of her job by statute is to issue marriage licenses in her county.
I'm surprised a litigant didn't have her subjected to a show-cause
hearing, or maybe she was. It's more than a little disingenuous of you
to present "options" for her nonfeasance. She was elected to perform the
duties of her office, *not* to decide on religious grounds which duties
to perform and which not to perform.

Suppose the head clerk in your motor vehicle department was a Muslim and
determined that her religion required her to not issue driver's licenses
to women. I wonder if the righties supporting Kim Davis for her
religious beliefs would speak up for the Muslim who decided to not issue
licenses to women.

Yeah, far-fetched, but, after all, one person's religion is another
person's curse.

Being dense must be a hardship, no?

WHAT DOES THE STATUTE SAY, DUMMY? If it says 'one man and one woman'
then it's no
longer in play.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

You don't have a big enough 2x4 to knock sense into KKKrause.


The state of Kentucky amended the Kentucky Constitution in 2004 with the
following regarding marriages:

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or
recognized as a marriage in Kentucky. A legal status identical or
substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals
shall not be valid or recognized."

The amendment was approved by 75 percent of the voters.

The SCOTUS didn't write a new law that supersedes the Kentucky law.
All it did was confirm that discrimination of same sex marriage
couples was unconstitutional.

Kim Davis didn't discriminate. She found herself in a dilemma. Not only
was it against her religious beliefs, to issue marriage licenses to same
sex couples is currently in violation of the Kentucky State
Constitution. So, what did she do? She stopped issuing marriage
licenses period. No licenses for gay couples. No licenses for
heterosexual couples. No discrimination.

So what does a federal judge do? Holds her in contempt and throws her
in jail. For what?


She made the mistake of calling on god and not calling a lawyer.
I don't think she wants to be out of jail. She is a martyr in her
community and I doubt they are treating her that bad in the slammer.
You really do not want to **** off the court clerk if you want any
legal paperwork to flow.