Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 12:17:37 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

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.

Who arranged to have the TV station there, Krause?

Which general was that again? You know, the one in an unnamed organization collecting
bodies of soldiers left behind by their units.

--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/4/15 1:03 PM, wrote:
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.


I don't think it is all that complex, nor do I think your libertarian
solution works here.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
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.

Federal judges have overstepped their jurisdiction before.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/4/15 1:36 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
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.

Federal judges have overstepped their jurisdiction before.



So you think a civil official ought to be able to use his or her
superstitious religious beliefs to make office policy, eh?

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/4/15 1:36 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
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.

Federal judges have overstepped their jurisdiction before.



So you think a civil official ought to be able to use his or her
superstitious religious beliefs to make office policy, eh?

Nope, but I also think it is a state offense and problem, not Federal. I
still support States Rights, like the founding fathers did.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 13:11:06 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/4/15 1:03 PM, wrote:
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.


I don't think it is all that complex, nor do I think your libertarian
solution works here.

It is as complex as any ambulance chasing lawyer wants to make it. The
fact is, the SCOTUS has invalidated the only federal law defining
marriage and now this court has invalidated the Kentucky statute,
along with those in many other states. (man/wonan is so entwined in
the language that it is hard to separate without legislation)
The only reason this has become a religious mater is because Ms Davis
wanted it to be. She did stop issuing ANY marriage licenses and she
was legally on sound footing if she chose to go that way

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 13:03:16 -0400, wrote:

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.

===

I'm sure that's what the founding fathers expected. The states had
power over almost everything in those days and that's the way they
wanted it. The Federal government was needed for national defense,
matters related to interstate commerce, and protection of
constitutional rights.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 13:44:52 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:


So you think a civil official ought to be able to use his or her
superstitious religious beliefs to make office policy, eh?

I agree with you there. It would have been better if she just said the
law was overturned and now she was waiting for legislation to fix it.
The result is the same, no marriage licenses.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/4/15 2:01 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/4/15 1:36 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
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.

Federal judges have overstepped their jurisdiction before.



So you think a civil official ought to be able to use his or her
superstitious religious beliefs to make office policy, eh?

Nope, but I also think it is a state offense and problem, not Federal. I
still support States Rights, like the founding fathers did.



You might want to read the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th
Amendment, among other documents.

The only humor I find in this is the clerk's marriage and pregnancy
history. It's quite colorful and demonstrates her hypocrisy about her
alleged religious beliefs.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 14:40:19 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 13:03:16 -0400, wrote:

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.

===

I'm sure that's what the founding fathers expected. The states had
power over almost everything in those days and that's the way they
wanted it. The Federal government was needed for national defense,
matters related to interstate commerce, and protection of
constitutional rights.

Unfortunately in Marbury v Madison the SCOTUS gave itself the power to
legislate from the bench so 535 congressmen, 50 state legislatures and
the White House can be trumped by 5 old farts in robes.
There is nobody who can over rule them.
Jackson may have been the only president to challenge them but in
Worcester, there was really nothing to enforce.