Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 21:14:21 -0400, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 9/3/2015 8:42 PM, wrote:

So you admit this was just a political protest, not an actual
hardship.
I still say that as long as she did not issue any marriage licenses at
all, she may have a case, for whatever the motive might be.


Folks who can't or won't follow orders have the options of being fired,
filing a grievance or quitting. Why is the court sticking its nose into
it? The employer and the employee should resolve the situation without
the gubmints interference.

Ms Davis is not an employee, she is an elected official. They can't
fire her and they have little to say about what she does.
She can only be sued, arrested or impeached.
They went with arrested because everything would take months or even
years..

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 21:34:04 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 8:42 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 19:53:00 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I noticed that the news did not show any pictures of the straight
couples who could not get a license there. I suppose they just drove
15 miles down the road to the next county seat.

Because the clerk in their county refused to do her job, and keep her
damned religion out of it.

So you admit this was just a political protest, not an actual
hardship.
I still say that as long as she did not issue any marriage licenses at
all, she may have a case, for whatever the motive might be.


I'm not admitting anything of the sort. What is the matter with your
processing?


Maybe if your answers were more responsive, it would make more sense.
This was clearly a political protest because there were no straight
couples protesting and they were locked out too.
They arranged cameras to be there when a gay couple came up to the
counter in a clearly staged event.
If this is what you are referring to my statement is clearly relevant.

BTW I would not be shocked if this couple never got married. It is
like the handicapped, would be, stripper who forced the case of a
wheelchair accessible titty bar stage. Once they put it in, she never
came back Not one time,.
There are just some professional protesters. I guess it is a living

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/3/15 10:50 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 21:14:21 -0400, Justan Olphart
wrote:

On 9/3/2015 8:42 PM, wrote:

So you admit this was just a political protest, not an actual
hardship.
I still say that as long as she did not issue any marriage licenses at
all, she may have a case, for whatever the motive might be.


Folks who can't or won't follow orders have the options of being fired,
filing a grievance or quitting. Why is the court sticking its nose into
it? The employer and the employee should resolve the situation without
the gubmints interference.

Ms Davis is not an employee, she is an elected official. They can't
fire her and they have little to say about what she does.
She can only be sued, arrested or impeached.
They went with arrested because everything would take months or even
years..


The judge jailed her because he assumed the right-wing bigots who
support her lack of action would simply pay her fine. If she can't do
the job she was elected to do, she should simply resign.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/3/15 10:59 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 21:34:04 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 8:42 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 19:53:00 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I noticed that the news did not show any pictures of the straight
couples who could not get a license there. I suppose they just drove
15 miles down the road to the next county seat.

Because the clerk in their county refused to do her job, and keep her
damned religion out of it.

So you admit this was just a political protest, not an actual
hardship.
I still say that as long as she did not issue any marriage licenses at
all, she may have a case, for whatever the motive might be.


I'm not admitting anything of the sort. What is the matter with your
processing?


Maybe if your answers were more responsive, it would make more sense.
This was clearly a political protest because there were no straight
couples protesting and they were locked out too.
They arranged cameras to be there when a gay couple came up to the
counter in a clearly staged event.
If this is what you are referring to my statement is clearly relevant.

BTW I would not be shocked if this couple never got married. It is
like the handicapped, would be, stripper who forced the case of a
wheelchair accessible titty bar stage. Once they put it in, she never
came back Not one time,.
There are just some professional protesters. I guess it is a living




I have no knowledge of whether it was "clearly a political protest" and
neither do you. Davis was elected to do the job of the clerk, which
includes issuing marriage licenses. If she has some moronic religious
reason preventing her from doing that, she should resign. This is not a
country in which the christian taliban rule, and while she is entitled
to believe whatever she wants, she cannot use those beliefs to determine
whether she will issue marriage licenses. She was found in contempt of
court.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:29:57 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 10:59 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 21:34:04 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 8:42 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 19:53:00 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I noticed that the news did not show any pictures of the straight
couples who could not get a license there. I suppose they just drove
15 miles down the road to the next county seat.

Because the clerk in their county refused to do her job, and keep her
damned religion out of it.

So you admit this was just a political protest, not an actual
hardship.
I still say that as long as she did not issue any marriage licenses at
all, she may have a case, for whatever the motive might be.


I'm not admitting anything of the sort. What is the matter with your
processing?


Maybe if your answers were more responsive, it would make more sense.
This was clearly a political protest because there were no straight
couples protesting and they were locked out too.
They arranged cameras to be there when a gay couple came up to the
counter in a clearly staged event.
If this is what you are referring to my statement is clearly relevant.

BTW I would not be shocked if this couple never got married. It is
like the handicapped, would be, stripper who forced the case of a
wheelchair accessible titty bar stage. Once they put it in, she never
came back Not one time,.
There are just some professional protesters. I guess it is a living




I have no knowledge of whether it was "clearly a political protest" and
neither do you. Davis was elected to do the job of the clerk, which
includes issuing marriage licenses. If she has some moronic religious
reason preventing her from doing that, she should resign. This is not a
country in which the christian taliban rule, and while she is entitled
to believe whatever she wants, she cannot use those beliefs to determine
whether she will issue marriage licenses. She was found in contempt of
court.

Bull****
Who arranged to have the TV station there?

It is very possible that there may not be any marriage licenses at all
in Kentucky since the law that defines the way they are issued has
been ruled unconstitutional. There is no federal law that defines the
marriage process either.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/4/2015 11:22 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:29:57 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 10:59 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 21:34:04 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 8:42 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 19:53:00 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I noticed that the news did not show any pictures of the straight
couples who could not get a license there. I suppose they just drove
15 miles down the road to the next county seat.

Because the clerk in their county refused to do her job, and keep her
damned religion out of it.

So you admit this was just a political protest, not an actual
hardship.
I still say that as long as she did not issue any marriage licenses at
all, she may have a case, for whatever the motive might be.


I'm not admitting anything of the sort. What is the matter with your
processing?


Maybe if your answers were more responsive, it would make more sense.
This was clearly a political protest because there were no straight
couples protesting and they were locked out too.
They arranged cameras to be there when a gay couple came up to the
counter in a clearly staged event.
If this is what you are referring to my statement is clearly relevant.

BTW I would not be shocked if this couple never got married. It is
like the handicapped, would be, stripper who forced the case of a
wheelchair accessible titty bar stage. Once they put it in, she never
came back Not one time,.
There are just some professional protesters. I guess it is a living




I have no knowledge of whether it was "clearly a political protest" and
neither do you. Davis was elected to do the job of the clerk, which
includes issuing marriage licenses. If she has some moronic religious
reason preventing her from doing that, she should resign. This is not a
country in which the christian taliban rule, and while she is entitled
to believe whatever she wants, she cannot use those beliefs to determine
whether she will issue marriage licenses. She was found in contempt of
court.

Bull****
Who arranged to have the TV station there?

It is very possible that there may not be any marriage licenses at all
in Kentucky since the law that defines the way they are issued has
been ruled unconstitutional. There is no federal law that defines the
marriage process either.



Setting aside views on same sex marriages, this is an interesting
situation from a legal point of view, which I am sure her attorney is
well aware.

It seems to me that a federal judge's only authority would be to
ensure that *if* marriage licenses are issued by a state or community
that no discrimination takes place. If *no* licenses are being issued
(as in this case) a federal judge can't *force* them to be issued.

Last I heard, there are several assistants in her department willing to
issue the licenses, so this has become nothing more than a political show.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/4/15 11:22 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:29:57 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 10:59 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 21:34:04 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 8:42 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 19:53:00 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I noticed that the news did not show any pictures of the straight
couples who could not get a license there. I suppose they just drove
15 miles down the road to the next county seat.

Because the clerk in their county refused to do her job, and keep her
damned religion out of it.

So you admit this was just a political protest, not an actual
hardship.
I still say that as long as she did not issue any marriage licenses at
all, she may have a case, for whatever the motive might be.


I'm not admitting anything of the sort. What is the matter with your
processing?


Maybe if your answers were more responsive, it would make more sense.
This was clearly a political protest because there were no straight
couples protesting and they were locked out too.
They arranged cameras to be there when a gay couple came up to the
counter in a clearly staged event.
If this is what you are referring to my statement is clearly relevant.

BTW I would not be shocked if this couple never got married. It is
like the handicapped, would be, stripper who forced the case of a
wheelchair accessible titty bar stage. Once they put it in, she never
came back Not one time,.
There are just some professional protesters. I guess it is a living




I have no knowledge of whether it was "clearly a political protest" and
neither do you. Davis was elected to do the job of the clerk, which
includes issuing marriage licenses. If she has some moronic religious
reason preventing her from doing that, she should resign. This is not a
country in which the christian taliban rule, and while she is entitled
to believe whatever she wants, she cannot use those beliefs to determine
whether she will issue marriage licenses. She was found in contempt of
court.

Bull****
Who arranged to have the TV station there?

It is very possible that there may not be any marriage licenses at all
in Kentucky since the law that defines the way they are issued has
been ruled unconstitutional. There is no federal law that defines the
marriage process either.


I think I'll defer to the jurisdiction of the federal judge in this
matter, even though you think you know more about the issues and laws
than he does.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/4/15 11:51 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/4/2015 11:22 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:29:57 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 10:59 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 21:34:04 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 8:42 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 19:53:00 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

I noticed that the news did not show any pictures of the straight
couples who could not get a license there. I suppose they just
drove
15 miles down the road to the next county seat.

Because the clerk in their county refused to do her job, and keep
her
damned religion out of it.

So you admit this was just a political protest, not an actual
hardship.
I still say that as long as she did not issue any marriage
licenses at
all, she may have a case, for whatever the motive might be.


I'm not admitting anything of the sort. What is the matter with your
processing?


Maybe if your answers were more responsive, it would make more sense.
This was clearly a political protest because there were no straight
couples protesting and they were locked out too.
They arranged cameras to be there when a gay couple came up to the
counter in a clearly staged event.
If this is what you are referring to my statement is clearly relevant.

BTW I would not be shocked if this couple never got married. It is
like the handicapped, would be, stripper who forced the case of a
wheelchair accessible titty bar stage. Once they put it in, she never
came back Not one time,.
There are just some professional protesters. I guess it is a living




I have no knowledge of whether it was "clearly a political protest" and
neither do you. Davis was elected to do the job of the clerk, which
includes issuing marriage licenses. If she has some moronic religious
reason preventing her from doing that, she should resign. This is not a
country in which the christian taliban rule, and while she is entitled
to believe whatever she wants, she cannot use those beliefs to determine
whether she will issue marriage licenses. She was found in contempt of
court.

Bull****
Who arranged to have the TV station there?

It is very possible that there may not be any marriage licenses at all
in Kentucky since the law that defines the way they are issued has
been ruled unconstitutional. There is no federal law that defines the
marriage process either.



Setting aside views on same sex marriages, this is an interesting
situation from a legal point of view, which I am sure her attorney is
well aware.

It seems to me that a federal judge's only authority would be to
ensure that *if* marriage licenses are issued by a state or community
that no discrimination takes place. If *no* licenses are being issued
(as in this case) a federal judge can't *force* them to be issued.

Last I heard, there are several assistants in her department willing to
issue the licenses, so this has become nothing more than a political show.


Actually, it was an attempt by a christian ayatollah wannabe to exert
the "authority" of her religious beliefs over civil law. That's really
*not* the way it is supposed to be done in this country, yet. If you
want religious law imposed over civil matters, there's always Iran and
Afghanistan.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 11:51:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/4/2015 11:22 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:29:57 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 10:59 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 21:34:04 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/3/15 8:42 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 19:53:00 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

I noticed that the news did not show any pictures of the straight
couples who could not get a license there. I suppose they just drove
15 miles down the road to the next county seat.

Because the clerk in their county refused to do her job, and keep her
damned religion out of it.

So you admit this was just a political protest, not an actual
hardship.
I still say that as long as she did not issue any marriage licenses at
all, she may have a case, for whatever the motive might be.


I'm not admitting anything of the sort. What is the matter with your
processing?


Maybe if your answers were more responsive, it would make more sense.
This was clearly a political protest because there were no straight
couples protesting and they were locked out too.
They arranged cameras to be there when a gay couple came up to the
counter in a clearly staged event.
If this is what you are referring to my statement is clearly relevant.

BTW I would not be shocked if this couple never got married. It is
like the handicapped, would be, stripper who forced the case of a
wheelchair accessible titty bar stage. Once they put it in, she never
came back Not one time,.
There are just some professional protesters. I guess it is a living




I have no knowledge of whether it was "clearly a political protest" and
neither do you. Davis was elected to do the job of the clerk, which
includes issuing marriage licenses. If she has some moronic religious
reason preventing her from doing that, she should resign. This is not a
country in which the christian taliban rule, and while she is entitled
to believe whatever she wants, she cannot use those beliefs to determine
whether she will issue marriage licenses. She was found in contempt of
court.

Bull****
Who arranged to have the TV station there?

It is very possible that there may not be any marriage licenses at all
in Kentucky since the law that defines the way they are issued has
been ruled unconstitutional. There is no federal law that defines the
marriage process either.



Setting aside views on same sex marriages, this is an interesting
situation from a legal point of view, which I am sure her attorney is
well aware.

It seems to me that a federal judge's only authority would be to
ensure that *if* marriage licenses are issued by a state or community
that no discrimination takes place. If *no* licenses are being issued
(as in this case) a federal judge can't *force* them to be issued.

Last I heard, there are several assistants in her department willing to
issue the licenses, so this has become nothing more than a political show.

Exactly.
If the clerk did not want to be a religious martyr she could simply
say the courts have thrown out the law regulating marriage licenses
and she is powerless to issue one without action from the legislature
defining the process..
OTOH the next county seat over is 15 miles away. It is clear that both
sides are simply protesting. I am sure the gay couple would have been
happy to get arrested if this went the other way. They were clearly
taunting her on camera and pretty much daring her to call in the
deputy.who was standing there.
Kubuki theater at it's finest.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 12:19:28 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:



Actually, it was an attempt by a christian ayatollah wannabe to exert
the "authority" of her religious beliefs over civil law. That's really
*not* the way it is supposed to be done in this country, yet. If you
want religious law imposed over civil matters, there's always Iran and
Afghanistan.

You are right in a way
It would have been just as easy for her to say she was simply hog tied
by the court when they threw out the law that regulates licenses and
she is waiting for guidance from the legislature before she can start
issuing licenses again.
Both sides were simply trying to advance an agenda.

It does bring up an interesting point. What is the federal standard
for what actually constitutes marriage? It is totally a state issue
and the states could have totally different standards.
This is even more confusing since they have thrown DOMA (1 U.S. Code §
7) out.
Basically if a state says you are "married", all of the other states
(and the feds) must recognize that and what that actually means is up
to the state. If the state statute is invalid, is anyone in that state
still married? Can anyone get married? Maybe not.

It is an interesting legal conundrum.