I wonder...
 

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

I wonder...
 

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.

I wonder...
 

On 9/3/2015 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?


It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.


She has a smart lawyer.

I wonder...
 

On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.



Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge
throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks
to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped.

I wonder...
 

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.



Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge
throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks
to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped.

Yet you give Hillary, whose 'malfeasance' was much more severe, a pass.

What a f'ing hypocrite.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

I wonder...
 

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 7:21:24 AM UTC-4, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis's refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.



Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge
throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks
to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped.

Yet you give Hillary, whose 'malfeasance' was much more severe, a pass.

What a f'ing hypocrite.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Email-gate keeps rolling along. Now a Clinton staffer that helped to setup the server says he's going to "take the 5th". Heh. I think the Clinton teflon is wearing thin, and this guy doesn't want to have an "accident".

I wonder...
 

On 9/3/15 3:08 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2015 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?


It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.


She has a smart lawyer.





She's a piece of work.

Davis describes herself as an Apostolic Christian and has been married
four times, with three different husbands, and her second and fourth
husbands are the same man. The first three marriages ended in divorces
in 1994, 2006, and 2008.

She is the mother of twins, who were born five months after her divorce
from her first husband in 1994. The biological father of the twins is
her third husband, but her second (who is also her current) husband has
adopted them.

Yep, a true follower of Jesus.

I wonder...
 

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.



Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge
throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks
to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped.

I suppose the question is whether a marriage license is a
constitutionally mandated service from a local government.
Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a listed constitutional right.
It is just a government overreach that put them together in the first
place..
Usually when the government starts getting into religious dogma you
are opposed to it.
They simply got out of the marriage business. Good for them.

I wonder...
 

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 09:04:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 3:08 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/3/2015 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?


It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.


She has a smart lawyer.





She's a piece of work.

Davis describes herself as an Apostolic Christian and has been married
four times, with three different husbands, and her second and fourth
husbands are the same man. The first three marriages ended in divorces
in 1994, 2006, and 2008.

She is the mother of twins, who were born five months after her divorce
from her first husband in 1994. The biological father of the twins is
her third husband, but her second (who is also her current) husband has
adopted them.

Yep, a true follower of Jesus.

Jesus sounds like he was a "player" too. The image was just scrubbed
up a bit in the 16th century when the Europeans gave the religion a
makeover. (also when Jesus became a white guy). Those old jews thought
sex was a zesty part of life.

I wonder...
 

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 10:56:43 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis's refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.



Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge
throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks
to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped.

I suppose the question is whether a marriage license is a
constitutionally mandated service from a local government.
Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a listed constitutional right.
It is just a government overreach that put them together in the first
place..
Usually when the government starts getting into religious dogma you
are opposed to it.
They simply got out of the marriage business. Good for them.

As I believe you have pointed out before, the gov shouldn't even be in the marriage business. To them, marriage is just a contract that two folks enter into, and when they do, a set of laws govern how the parties interact. Leave it at that, problem solved. Want to be "married"? Find a church that will do it in the eyes of God. Why can't someone in DC figure that out?

I wonder...
 

On 9/3/15 10:56 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.



Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge
throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks
to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped.

I suppose the question is whether a marriage license is a
constitutionally mandated service from a local government.
Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a listed constitutional right.
It is just a government overreach that put them together in the first
place..
Usually when the government starts getting into religious dogma you
are opposed to it.
They simply got out of the marriage business. Good for them.



At the moment there are legal reasons aplenty to have a marriage license
and marriage. Now, if that were changed countrywide so that the license
application says "Marriage License/Civil Union License," and there were
no legal differences anywhere in this country between the two, then...

But we aren't there.

I wonder...
 

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 08:37:33 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 10:56:43 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis's refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.



Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge
throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks
to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped.

I suppose the question is whether a marriage license is a
constitutionally mandated service from a local government.
Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a listed constitutional right.
It is just a government overreach that put them together in the first
place..
Usually when the government starts getting into religious dogma you
are opposed to it.
They simply got out of the marriage business. Good for them.

As I believe you have pointed out before, the gov shouldn't even be in the marriage business. To them, marriage is just a contract that two folks enter into, and when they do, a set of laws govern how the parties interact. Leave it at that, problem solved. Want to be "married"? Find a church that will do it in the eyes of God. Why can't someone in DC figure that out?

I agree. The word 'marriage' should never have been associated with the word
'license'. 'Partnership' or 'Union' or any other word showing the joining of two
people in such a way as to get government, etc, benefits should have been used.

'Conjugal License' sounds good to me, or maybe 'connubial license'.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

I wonder...
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/3/15 10:56 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.



Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge
throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks
to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped.

I suppose the question is whether a marriage license is a
constitutionally mandated service from a local government.
Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a listed constitutional right.
It is just a government overreach that put them together in the first
place..
Usually when the government starts getting into religious dogma you
are opposed to it.
They simply got out of the marriage business. Good for them.



At the moment there are legal reasons aplenty to have a marriage license
and marriage. Now, if that were changed countrywide so that the license
application says "Marriage License/Civil Union License," and there were
no legal differences anywhere in this country between the two, then...

But we aren't there.

Why say marriage license? It is a civil contract. Until the 1880's you
could have multiple spouses, and no license required.

I wonder...
 

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 12:03:00 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 10:56 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.



Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge
throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks
to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped.

I suppose the question is whether a marriage license is a
constitutionally mandated service from a local government.
Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a listed constitutional right.
It is just a government overreach that put them together in the first
place..
Usually when the government starts getting into religious dogma you
are opposed to it.
They simply got out of the marriage business. Good for them.



At the moment there are legal reasons aplenty to have a marriage license
and marriage. Now, if that were changed countrywide so that the license
application says "Marriage License/Civil Union License," and there were
no legal differences anywhere in this country between the two, then...

But we aren't there.

We have to start somewhere.

The government used to fund and install nativity scenes on the town
square but you guys "fixed" that so get busy.
They were moving in that direction with the civil unions but the gay
community would not accept that. Now they are reaping the fruits of
that labor.
I know of no federal law that REQUIRES local governments to license
marriage.
I am not sure that if they simply refuse to do any marriage, the court
has much of a leg to stand on. That may not be finally decided until
the SCOTUS rules ... or someone runs out of money to fight it.

The result could be profound but I don't think that is a bad thing.
Why does the government have the power to decide who can "marry" since
that is a religious act?
"Civil union" makes a lot more sense when you are talking about
rights, obligations and privileges granted by the civil authority.
That should be available to any 2 or more people who want to enter
that contract.

I wonder...
 

On 9/3/15 12:43 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 12:03:00 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 10:56 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.



Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge
throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks
to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped.

I suppose the question is whether a marriage license is a
constitutionally mandated service from a local government.
Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a listed constitutional right.
It is just a government overreach that put them together in the first
place..
Usually when the government starts getting into religious dogma you
are opposed to it.
They simply got out of the marriage business. Good for them.



At the moment there are legal reasons aplenty to have a marriage license
and marriage. Now, if that were changed countrywide so that the license
application says "Marriage License/Civil Union License," and there were
no legal differences anywhere in this country between the two, then...

But we aren't there.

We have to start somewhere.

The government used to fund and install nativity scenes on the town
square but you guys "fixed" that so get busy.
They were moving in that direction with the civil unions but the gay
community would not accept that. Now they are reaping the fruits of
that labor.
I know of no federal law that REQUIRES local governments to license
marriage.
I am not sure that if they simply refuse to do any marriage, the court
has much of a leg to stand on. That may not be finally decided until
the SCOTUS rules ... or someone runs out of money to fight it.

The result could be profound but I don't think that is a bad thing.
Why does the government have the power to decide who can "marry" since
that is a religious act?
"Civil union" makes a lot more sense when you are talking about
rights, obligations and privileges granted by the civil authority.
That should be available to any 2 or more people who want to enter
that contract.


I agree that civil union, if it universally grants all the legal rights
and privileges of marriage, is fine.

I'm not a fan of nativity scenes on public properly, but I'm not
offended enough to try to do anything about it. I did help get a public
polling place out of an overly aggressive fundie church and into a
public school.

I wonder...
 

On 9/3/2015 12:43 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 12:03:00 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 10:56 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis’s refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.



Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge
throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks
to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped.

I suppose the question is whether a marriage license is a
constitutionally mandated service from a local government.
Marriage is a religious ceremony, not a listed constitutional right.
It is just a government overreach that put them together in the first
place..
Usually when the government starts getting into religious dogma you
are opposed to it.
They simply got out of the marriage business. Good for them.



At the moment there are legal reasons aplenty to have a marriage license
and marriage. Now, if that were changed countrywide so that the license
application says "Marriage License/Civil Union License," and there were
no legal differences anywhere in this country between the two, then...

But we aren't there.

We have to start somewhere.

The government used to fund and install nativity scenes on the town
square but you guys "fixed" that so get busy.
They were moving in that direction with the civil unions but the gay
community would not accept that. Now they are reaping the fruits of
that labor.
I know of no federal law that REQUIRES local governments to license
marriage.
I am not sure that if they simply refuse to do any marriage, the court
has much of a leg to stand on. That may not be finally decided until
the SCOTUS rules ... or someone runs out of money to fight it.

The result could be profound but I don't think that is a bad thing.
Why does the government have the power to decide who can "marry" since
that is a religious act?
"Civil union" makes a lot more sense when you are talking about
rights, obligations and privileges granted by the civil authority.
That should be available to any 2 or more people who want to enter
that contract.



The federal judge just found Davis in contempt of court and ordered her
to jail.

I wonder...
 

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:19:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/3/2015 12:43 PM, wrote:


We have to start somewhere.

The government used to fund and install nativity scenes on the town
square but you guys "fixed" that so get busy.
They were moving in that direction with the civil unions but the gay
community would not accept that. Now they are reaping the fruits of
that labor.
I know of no federal law that REQUIRES local governments to license
marriage.
I am not sure that if they simply refuse to do any marriage, the court
has much of a leg to stand on. That may not be finally decided until
the SCOTUS rules ... or someone runs out of money to fight it.

The result could be profound but I don't think that is a bad thing.
Why does the government have the power to decide who can "marry" since
that is a religious act?
"Civil union" makes a lot more sense when you are talking about
rights, obligations and privileges granted by the civil authority.
That should be available to any 2 or more people who want to enter
that contract.



The federal judge just found Davis in contempt of court and ordered her
to jail.


I heard that. Political correctness run amok.

I am curious exactly what law the original court cited when they made
ther order she ignored. This may be tossed and the lower court
reversed.
Rand Paul says he knows of no Kentucky law that requires local
officials to issue marriage licenses and since she stopped ALL of
them, she is not discriminating against any single protected group.

I wonder...
 

On 9/3/15 3:34 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 13:19:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/3/2015 12:43 PM, wrote:


We have to start somewhere.

The government used to fund and install nativity scenes on the town
square but you guys "fixed" that so get busy.
They were moving in that direction with the civil unions but the gay
community would not accept that. Now they are reaping the fruits of
that labor.
I know of no federal law that REQUIRES local governments to license
marriage.
I am not sure that if they simply refuse to do any marriage, the court
has much of a leg to stand on. That may not be finally decided until
the SCOTUS rules ... or someone runs out of money to fight it.

The result could be profound but I don't think that is a bad thing.
Why does the government have the power to decide who can "marry" since
that is a religious act?
"Civil union" makes a lot more sense when you are talking about
rights, obligations and privileges granted by the civil authority.
That should be available to any 2 or more people who want to enter
that contract.



The federal judge just found Davis in contempt of court and ordered her
to jail.


I heard that. Political correctness run amok.

I am curious exactly what law the original court cited when they made
ther order she ignored. This may be tossed and the lower court
reversed.
Rand Paul says he knows of no Kentucky law that requires local
officials to issue marriage licenses and since she stopped ALL of
them, she is not discriminating against any single protected group.



Uh-huh. :)

I wonder...
 

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. I just looked and Florida statute
says " The county court judge or clerk of the circuit court shall
issue such license, upon application for the license, if there appears
to be no impediment to the marriage."

If they have that language, she may be in trouble. ("Shall" in the law
means "must do")

Kentucky is a strange place so he might be right tho. If they use the
word ""may", it is not mandatory.

I wonder...
 

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

I wonder...
 

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 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

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!

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

I wonder...
 

On 9/4/15 2:26 AM, Califbill wrote:
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


No, I don't. If you are having "spell corrector" problems, just shut off
the "spell correcter," Mr. "Frisk'"

I wonder...
 

On 9/3/2015 6:41 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 7:21:24 AM UTC-4, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis's refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.



Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge
throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious" folks
to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped.

Yet you give Hillary, whose 'malfeasance' was much more severe, a pass.

What a f'ing hypocrite.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Email-gate keeps rolling along. Now a Clinton staffer that helped to setup the server says he's going to "take the 5th". Heh. I think the Clinton teflon is wearing thin, and this guy doesn't want to have an "accident".



He's all set to get probation if he testifies truthfully.

Mikek

I wonder...
 

On 9/5/15 7:31 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/3/2015 6:41 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 7:21:24 AM UTC-4, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis's
refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.



Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge
throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious"
folks
to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped.

Yet you give Hillary, whose 'malfeasance' was much more severe, a pass.

What a f'ing hypocrite.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Email-gate keeps rolling along. Now a Clinton staffer that helped to
setup the server says he's going to "take the 5th". Heh. I think the
Clinton teflon is wearing thin, and this guy doesn't want to have an
"accident".



He's all set to get probation if he testifies truthfully.

Mikek

D'oh. Do you even know what "taking the Fifth" means? Probably not.

I wonder...
 

On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 6:43:56 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/5/15 7:31 PM, amdx wrote:
On 9/3/2015 6:41 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 7:21:24 AM UTC-4, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 06:32:41 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 1:39 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 15:22:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I wonder how many of those supporting Kentucky clerk Kim Davis's
refusal
to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based upon her religious
objection to same-sex couples marrying would support her if she were
empowered to issue gun permits but refused to do so based upon a
religious commitment to pacifism?

It should be noted that she is not issuing ANY marriage licenses.



Willful nonfeasance by a public official. I hope the federal judge
throws the book at her. These efforts of bat**** crazy "religious"
folks
to turn this country into an ayatollahville need to be stopped.

Yet you give Hillary, whose 'malfeasance' was much more severe, a pass.

What a f'ing hypocrite.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Email-gate keeps rolling along. Now a Clinton staffer that helped to
setup the server says he's going to "take the 5th". Heh. I think the
Clinton teflon is wearing thin, and this guy doesn't want to have an
"accident".



He's all set to get probation if he testifies truthfully.

Mikek

D'oh. Do you even know what "taking the Fifth" means? Probably not.

Throughout your coulourful life I'm sure you have "taken the fifth" on several occasions, thus making you an expert on the said matter.

I wonder...
 

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:43:54 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 7:31 PM, amdx wrote:

He's all set to get probation if he testifies truthfully.

Mikek

D'oh. Do you even know what "taking the Fifth" means? Probably not.

The way prosecutors get around the 5th amendment is to grant immunity.
Then there is no incrimination and failure to testify is contempt of
court.

I wonder...
 

On 9/6/15 1:34 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:43:54 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 7:31 PM, amdx wrote:

He's all set to get probation if he testifies truthfully.

Mikek

D'oh. Do you even know what "taking the Fifth" means? Probably not.

The way prosecutors get around the 5th amendment is to grant immunity.
Then there is no incrimination and failure to testify is contempt of
court.


Gosh, really? :)

I wonder...
 

On 9/6/2015 1:34 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:43:54 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 7:31 PM, amdx wrote:

He's all set to get probation if he testifies truthfully.

Mikek

D'oh. Do you even know what "taking the Fifth" means? Probably not.

The way prosecutors get around the 5th amendment is to grant immunity.
Then there is no incrimination and failure to testify is contempt of
court.

Kind of like confessing your sins to be forgiven by the gods in black robes.

I wonder...
 

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 08:39:08 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/6/15 1:34 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:43:54 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 7:31 PM, amdx wrote:

He's all set to get probation if he testifies truthfully.

Mikek

D'oh. Do you even know what "taking the Fifth" means? Probably not.

The way prosecutors get around the 5th amendment is to grant immunity.
Then there is no incrimination and failure to testify is contempt of
court.


Gosh, really? :)

I am curious what Hillary's in house geek has to hide.

I wonder...
 

On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 11:40:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 08:39:08 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/6/15 1:34 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:43:54 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 7:31 PM, amdx wrote:

He's all set to get probation if he testifies truthfully.

Mikek

D'oh. Do you even know what "taking the Fifth" means? Probably not.

The way prosecutors get around the 5th amendment is to grant immunity.
Then there is no incrimination and failure to testify is contempt of
court.


Gosh, really? :)

I am curious what Hillary's in house geek has to hide.

===

If they can catch him in some kind of technical law violation, that
can be used as a bargaining chip to turn him against Hillary. They
will play hard ball with him if they can find an opening.

I wonder...
 

On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 13:31:35 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 11:40:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 08:39:08 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/6/15 1:34 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:43:54 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 7:31 PM, amdx wrote:

He's all set to get probation if he testifies truthfully.

Mikek

D'oh. Do you even know what "taking the Fifth" means? Probably not.

The way prosecutors get around the 5th amendment is to grant immunity.
Then there is no incrimination and failure to testify is contempt of
court.


Gosh, really? :)

I am curious what Hillary's in house geek has to hide.

===

If they can catch him in some kind of technical law violation, that
can be used as a bargaining chip to turn him against Hillary. They
will play hard ball with him if they can find an opening.

That is always the game of chicken they play with immunity. If he has
immunity and then says it was all his doing, nobody else knew what he
was doing, everyone walks.
It is always better if they know what they are immunizing him from
before they move.
Like the old adage says, never ask a question you don't already know
the answer to.
That is really best when it is a perjury trap.