BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Justan Olphart[_2_]

On 9/6/2015 1:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/6/2015 12:44 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 12:15:18 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/6/15 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.

I'm not ignoring the "legal issue" you keep bringing up. I just don't
think it is much of an issue.

In accordance with the Constitution, per the Fourteenth Amendment, and
as ruled on by the Supreme Court, bans on same-sex marriage are
unConstitutional.

Any official trying to infringe upon the rights granted to gay Americans
in accordance with the ruling is breaking the law. So, unless
super-conservative-religious Republicans somehow manage to pass a
Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage (which will never
happen) the “debate” is over – conservatives lost. They should really
get over it. If Kim Davis wants a peaceful life so she can find and
marry husbands five, six, and seven, she should just resign and find a
new job, perhaps as a greeter at WalMart.

The part you don't want to acknowledge is that her legal power to
issue licenses comes from the law that was thrown out.
The controversy now is whether these licenses would even be valid.

I would not be surprised if someone who was trying to dump a spouse
without dividing property will argue that they were never legally
married in the first place.

You also have the federal regulations (the federal law defining
marriage was thrown out too).
IRS and SS has administratively added language accepting gay marriage
but it actually says the feds accept any marriage that conforms to
state law. In this case, the state law is ambiguous at best.
All the SCIOTUS has done is remove references to one man and one
woman. They have not added the language necessary to may the law more
than gibberish without it.

This whole thing is a legal issue that is going to have to be ironed
out. The "religious" thing is simply a side show.

Another example, but opposite in how it affects us as citizens:

There is no Federal law that prohibits the
lawful owner of a firearm from traveling anywhere in the country with it
in his/her possession. It must be unloaded and out of reach or in a
locked container. Felons and several other status categories are
prohibited but in fact there is a federal law known as the "Firearms
Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA, that protects those who are
transporting firearms for lawful purposes from local restrictions which
would otherwise prohibit passage."

Yet, many states and localities, especially along the east coast, have
laws against having a firearm with you, even when just passing through.

Easy fix for that. The feds can step on step on states rights.