BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Keyser Söze

On 9/6/15 12:16 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/6/2015 11:46 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 08:49:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/6/15 1:44 AM, wrote:
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.

What is appalling about this case is that an elected public official is
using her alleged religious beliefs as an excuse to not perform her
legally specified duties. If she can't do her job as a public official
because of her religious beliefs, then she should resign and make way
for the appointment or election of country clerk who will obey the law
and not hide behind some made up religious bull****.

In the past in this country, Christian religious bigots have used their
faith to justify slavery, to justify segregation, to justify job
discrimination, to justify discrimination against gays, blacks, Jews,
Muslims, to prevent marriages between couples of mixed races, and more.
This latest incident, involving a public official, is just an extension
of the crap religious bigots have perpetrated in the past.

I don't give a damn what strange beliefs and practices the woman and her
"apostolic church" fool around with in their churches and homes, but
that nonsense has no place in a county clerk's office.

You keep ignoring the legal issue and Ms Davis is too. The law in
question was very skillfully written so you can't easily strike the
offending language without leaving a statute that is not really a law
anymore.
The SCOTUS can strike out language in a law but they can't add any.
That is up to the legislature.
There are real lawyers on TV now making the same point.

Harry (and other like-thinking liberals) just don't get it. Harry says,
"If she can't do her job as a public official because of her religious
beliefs, then she should resign and make way for the appointment or
election of country clerk who will obey the law and not hide behind some
made up religious bull****"

So, what law is she not obeying? Her state's Constitution defines
marriage as being "one man, one woman". Seems to me that she is obeying
*that* law.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if gay couples get married. I am
neither "for it" or "against it". My issue with this particular
circumstance is having a federal judge toss her in jail because she was
following the existing law of her state, regardless of her personal
religious views.

The *Supreme* Court ruled that language invalid. Kentucky's marriage law
as it pertains to gay marriage is kaput.

I guess this is really difficult for state's righters to understand.

Further, the religious beliefs of the county clerk are not “sacred” or
immune to criticism. They are beliefs in her head, and they are based
upon where she was born, how she was raised, and what influenced her.
Just because she wants to push her religious beliefs into how the
clerk’s office is operated does not make those “true” beliefs, or
obligate others to respect them. She has no right to operate her office
according to the tenets of the Apostolic Church.