| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#21
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
I wonder...
Boating All Out wrote:
In article je8huad6ujkabq00svu1apklcu1p6mi8ju@ 4ax.com, says... On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:19:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The federal judge just found Davis in contempt of court and ordered her to jail. I am not sure if Rand Paul is right. He's a ****ing eye doctor. According to Harry, he is OK. He has a Doctorate. |
|
#22
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I wonder...
On 9/3/15 4:03 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article je8huad6ujkabq00svu1apklcu1p6mi8ju@ 4ax.com, says... On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:19:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The federal judge just found Davis in contempt of court and ordered her to jail. I am not sure if Rand Paul is right. He's a ****ing eye doctor. An eye doctor without the credentials of his professional organization. |
|
#23
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I wonder...
On 9/3/15 4:22 PM, Califbill wrote:
Boating All Out wrote: In article je8huad6ujkabq00svu1apklcu1p6mi8ju@ 4ax.com, says... On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:19:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The federal judge just found Davis in contempt of court and ordered her to jail. I am not sure if Rand Paul is right. He's a ****ing eye doctor. According to Harry, he is OK. He has a Doctorate. Can you go *one day* without posting something here that is not extraordinarily ignorant and stupid? |
|
#24
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I wonder...
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 15:03:09 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: In article je8huad6ujkabq00svu1apklcu1p6mi8ju@ 4ax.com, says... On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:19:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The federal judge just found Davis in contempt of court and ordered her to jail. I am not sure if Rand Paul is right. He's a ****ing eye doctor. Then he must have pretty good eyesight. ;-) I doubt the Kentucky statutes around this are more than 100 words. I did question whether he actually knew. It is not ambiguous in Florida. It says the clerk "shall" issue marriage certificates. |
|
#25
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I wonder...
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 16:35:11 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/3/15 4:22 PM, Califbill wrote: Boating All Out wrote: In article je8huad6ujkabq00svu1apklcu1p6mi8ju@ 4ax.com, says... On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:19:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The federal judge just found Davis in contempt of court and ordered her to jail. I am not sure if Rand Paul is right. He's a ****ing eye doctor. According to Harry, he is OK. He has a Doctorate. Can you go *one day* without posting something here that is not extraordinarily ignorant and stupid? You've not done so. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
|
#26
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I wonder...
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 16:33:48 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/3/15 4:03 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article je8huad6ujkabq00svu1apklcu1p6mi8ju@ 4ax.com, says... On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:19:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The federal judge just found Davis in contempt of court and ordered her to jail. I am not sure if Rand Paul is right. He's a ****ing eye doctor. An eye doctor without the credentials of his professional organization. The funny thing is he might be right. I read the statutes and Kentucky is a strange place. The statute that talks about "who MAY issue a certificate" says this "402.080 Marriage license required -- Who may issue. No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk." They seem to intermingle "may" and "shall" which is ambiguous at best. It also says one of the parties must be female so lesbians have the edge here. |
|
#28
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I wonder...
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 18:07:54 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/3/15 5:29 PM, wrote: On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 16:33:48 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/3/15 4:03 PM, Boating All Out wrote: In article je8huad6ujkabq00svu1apklcu1p6mi8ju@ 4ax.com, says... On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:19:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The federal judge just found Davis in contempt of court and ordered her to jail. I am not sure if Rand Paul is right. He's a ****ing eye doctor. An eye doctor without the credentials of his professional organization. The funny thing is he might be right. I read the statutes and Kentucky is a strange place. The statute that talks about "who MAY issue a certificate" says this "402.080 Marriage license required -- Who may issue. No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk." They seem to intermingle "may" and "shall" which is ambiguous at best. It also says one of the parties must be female so lesbians have the edge here. It's not at all ambiguous. The license *shall* be issued is not the same as the earlier "Who may issue..." What you posted here does not say one of the parties "must" be female, it simply assumes one of the parties is. Yeah, I know...Semantics...one of those liberal arts thingies.  I am required to read the law as an inspector, Building codes are laws. The first thing you learn is you have to read it all, not just pluck a word or two out of context, The article is titled ."who may issue" implying a permissive code, not a prescriptive code. Then later it says "The license SHALL be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it MAY be issued by any county clerk." They still are saying "May" about the issuing and "shall" is only used in the sentence saying the license shall be issued in the county where the "female" resides. It is certainly ambiguous enough to mount a defense. OTOH Kentucky is still a state defining marriage between a man and woman as last updated on 09/03/2015 so the whole statute could be challenged, removing any power to issue licenses at all. They really have to tip toe around this to avoid unintended consequences. There are a lot of lawyers who will be ordering their new Lexus on this case. Like I said before, "my little backward state" is far less ambagious on this. All references in the statute say "shall". As an aside, our clerk was on TV tonight saying this woman is wrong and she was elected to keep her personal feelings out of the duties of the office. My only interest in this is in the idea that, if the government was totally out of the marriage business, we would not be having these fights. It is really a religious issue that has no business in the court house. If you believe different;y, you have switched sides on the church state issue |
|
#29
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I wonder...
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/3/15 4:22 PM, Califbill wrote: Boating All Out wrote: In article je8huad6ujkabq00svu1apklcu1p6mi8ju@ 4ax.com, says... On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:19:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The federal judge just found Davis in contempt of court and ordered her to jail. I am not sure if Rand Paul is right. He's a ****ing eye doctor. According to Harry, he is OK. He has a Doctorate. Can you go *one day* without posting something here that is not extraordinarily ignorant and stupid? What is ignorant about the statement? You dried anyone without degrees or advanced degrees! |
|
#30
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
I wonder...
Califbill billnews wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote: On 9/3/15 4:22 PM, Califbill wrote: Boating All Out wrote: In article je8huad6ujkabq00svu1apklcu1p6mi8ju@ 4ax.com, says... On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:19:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The federal judge just found Davis in contempt of court and ordered her to jail. I am not sure if Rand Paul is right. He's a ****ing eye doctor. According to Harry, he is OK. He has a Doctorate. Can you go *one day* without posting something here that is not extraordinarily ignorant and stupid? What is ignorant about the statement? You dried anyone without degrees or advanced degrees! Frisk' spell corrector. Deride |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
