|
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
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. |
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
On 9/6/2015 11:03 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 08:49:13 -0400, Keyser Söze took another opportunity to ridicule Christianity. 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 move he have the last word. The dumbf'k doesn't want to get it. -- Ban idiots, not guns! You can give him the last word but he won't stop. He's petrified of religion and isn't afraid to demonstrate that fear. He's also convinced that his way is the only way. How do you shut a jerk like that up? The answer is that you can't. |
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 08:49:13 -0400, Keyser Söze took another
opportunity to ridicule Christianity. 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 move he have the last word. The dumbf'k doesn't want to get it. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
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. |
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
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. |
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
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. |
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
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. |
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
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. |
Update on Clerk Kim Davis
On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 12:16:50 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: 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 issue is more fundamental, There is no state law anymore. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com