Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

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.


Does Harry still have his underwear in a bunch about the woman who
refused to issue a same sex marriage license? Holy crap. Seems to
me that there are far more important things to be concerned about ...

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/5/2015 7:00 PM, 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.


Does Harry still have his underwear in a bunch about the woman who
refused to issue a same sex marriage license? Holy crap. Seems to
me that there are far more important things to be concerned about ...

Problem is, Harry doesn't know what's important or not. He's so wrapped
up in towing the party line that he's lost whatever ability he had, to
think for himself.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

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?

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/5/15 7:00 PM, 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.


Does Harry still have his underwear in a bunch about the woman who
refused to issue a same sex marriage license? Holy crap. Seems to
me that there are far more important things to be concerned about ...



Is Luddite still daily pimping his legal opinions on Hillary Clinton's
emails?

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/5/15 7:00 PM, 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.


Does Harry still have his underwear in a bunch about the woman who
refused to issue a same sex marriage license? Holy crap. Seems to
me that there are far more important things to be concerned about ...



Is Luddite still daily pimping his legal opinions on Hillary Clinton's emails?

Can not read?

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/5/2015 7:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/5/15 7:00 PM, 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.


Does Harry still have his underwear in a bunch about the woman who
refused to issue a same sex marriage license? Holy crap. Seems to
me that there are far more important things to be concerned about ...



Is Luddite still daily pimping his legal opinions on Hillary Clinton's emails?

Can not read?

Is Harry implying he's not reading Luddite? Waa Ha Ha.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/5/15 7:36 PM, 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?




Whooosh, but fun to read these right-wing aplogeticas...

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 12:18:18 PM UTC-5, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/5/15 12:49 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 11:55:37 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 11:34 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 09:55:01 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/5/15 9:47 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 08:51:56 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/4/15 9:21 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:51:26 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/4/15 8:45 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:02:10 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 9/4/15 3:56 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:28:24 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:


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


It is interesting that the left is not willing to extend the full
faith and credit of concealed carry rights across state lines..


Oh? Is there a federal regulation that allows concealed carry rights
across state lines?

Is there a federal regulation on marriage?

Not since DOMA was tossed.

Next?


Specious.

Until you cite the federal law that even acknowledges gay marriage,
you have no ground to stand on.
The 14th amendment and the full faith and credit clause are saying any
state law should be honored in all states.
All the SCOTUS has done is say a law banning gay marriage is invalid,
they have not written the new law.


By striking down laws against gay marriage, the Supreme Court has
expanded the interpretation of existing law. That's what the high court
does...it interprets, it affirms, it strikes down.

In Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the high court overturned
Plessy v. Ferguson and struck down the concept of "separate but equal."
It didn't write a new law.

You righties seem to overlook the indisputable fact that the Kentucky
clerk was using her governmental office and thus the government to push
her religious beliefs.

Only because that is how she framed it.

It would have been a lot smarter...


The incident did not revolve around hypotheticals...and she ain't smart.
She used her religious beliefs and her political office to deny civil
rights to citizens. That's the issue. The court, in its wisdom, said,
"No, you don't."



It is not hypothetical that the SCOTUS has ruled the Kentucky law
unconstitutional and it will be unclear whether any license issued
after that ruling is legal.
Ms Davis just did not take that path when she stopped issuing
licenses. Since nobody could get a license, it was not discriminating
against any particular group.

The only reason why this is a religious issue is because she made it
one. She had firm legal ground to stop issuing any license, at least
as firm as any legal issue.


Gosh, I had no idea you were also a constitutional scholar. Did the
Supreme Court strike *all* laws a state might have pertaining to
marriage, or just language that in some way prevented gays from
marrying, as Virginia's laws once prevented couples of different races
from marrying?

If you read the statute in question and draw a line through the parts
the SCOTUS threw out, it is not a statute anymore. The specifics are
gone.
Virtually every sentence has a reference to "one man and one woman".
I am sure it was originally drafted that way on purpose by legislators
who are usually lawyers.



I'll wait for a scholarly legal ruling on that and of course what is and
what is not a statute.

Wrong! You NEVER wait for a scholarly legal ruling of anything. Your demented mind is pre-set on every subject.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:00:58 -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.


Does Harry still have his underwear in a bunch about the woman who
refused to issue a same sex marriage license? Holy crap. Seems to
me that there are far more important things to be concerned about ...

Right now the question is whether the licenses they are issuing are
valid ... and real lawyers are saying that.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

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.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 19:42:53 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote:

On 9/5/2015 7:40 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 9/5/15 7:00 PM, 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.


Does Harry still have his underwear in a bunch about the woman who
refused to issue a same sex marriage license? Holy crap. Seems to
me that there are far more important things to be concerned about ...



Is Luddite still daily pimping his legal opinions on Hillary Clinton's emails?

Can not read?

Is Harry implying he's not reading Luddite? Waa Ha Ha.

No ****! LOL.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

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.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/6/2015 12:44 PM, wrote:
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.



This whole thing is a legal issue that is going to have to be ironed
out. The "religious" thing is simply a side show.

Another example, but opposite in how it affects us as citizens:

There is no Federal law that prohibits the
lawful owner of a firearm from traveling anywhere in the country with it
in his/her possession. It must be unloaded and out of reach or in a
locked container. Felons and several other status categories are
prohibited but in fact there is a federal law known as the "Firearms
Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA, that protects those who are
transporting firearms for lawful purposes from local restrictions which
would otherwise prohibit passage."

Yet, many states and localities, especially along the east coast, have
laws against having a firearm with you, even when just passing through.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 10:43:15 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote:

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.

Easy, just stop talking to him. He gets tired of himself quickly.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 13:04:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:



This whole thing is a legal issue that is going to have to be ironed
out. The "religious" thing is simply a side show.

Another example, but opposite in how it affects us as citizens:

There is no Federal law that prohibits the
lawful owner of a firearm from traveling anywhere in the country with it
in his/her possession. It must be unloaded and out of reach or in a
locked container. Felons and several other status categories are
prohibited but in fact there is a federal law known as the "Firearms
Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA, that protects those who are
transporting firearms for lawful purposes from local restrictions which
would otherwise prohibit passage."

Yet, many states and localities, especially along the east coast, have
laws against having a firearm with you, even when just passing through.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...supreme-court/

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 17:33:15 -0400, wrote:

Another example, but opposite in how it affects us as citizens:

There is no Federal law that prohibits the
lawful owner of a firearm from traveling anywhere in the country with it
in his/her possession. It must be unloaded and out of reach or in a
locked container. Felons and several other status categories are
prohibited but in fact there is a federal law known as the "Firearms
Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA, that protects those who are
transporting firearms for lawful purposes from local restrictions which
would otherwise prohibit passage."

Yet, many states and localities, especially along the east coast, have
laws against having a firearm with you, even when just passing through.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...supreme-court/

===

I've heard of cases like that at NY airports where people found
themselves with an unlicensed gun after their connecting flight was
canceled. In NY that will get you mandatory time in the slam and even
possession of handgun ammunition can get you in trouble.

It might be safer to send the gun and ammo on ahead via UPS or FedEx.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On 9/6/2015 1:04 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/6/2015 12:44 PM, wrote:
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.



This whole thing is a legal issue that is going to have to be ironed
out. The "religious" thing is simply a side show.

Another example, but opposite in how it affects us as citizens:

There is no Federal law that prohibits the
lawful owner of a firearm from traveling anywhere in the country with it
in his/her possession. It must be unloaded and out of reach or in a
locked container. Felons and several other status categories are
prohibited but in fact there is a federal law known as the "Firearms
Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA, that protects those who are
transporting firearms for lawful purposes from local restrictions which
would otherwise prohibit passage."

Yet, many states and localities, especially along the east coast, have
laws against having a firearm with you, even when just passing through.

Easy fix for that. The feds can step on step on states rights.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 17:33:15 -0400, wrote:

Another example, but opposite in how it affects us as citizens:

There is no Federal law that prohibits the
lawful owner of a firearm from traveling anywhere in the country with it
in his/her possession. It must be unloaded and out of reach or in a
locked container. Felons and several other status categories are
prohibited but in fact there is a federal law known as the "Firearms
Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA, that protects those who are
transporting firearms for lawful purposes from local restrictions which
would otherwise prohibit passage."

Yet, many states and localities, especially along the east coast, have
laws against having a firearm with you, even when just passing through.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...supreme-court/
===

I've heard of cases like that at NY airports where people found
themselves with an unlicensed gun after their connecting flight was
canceled. In NY that will get you mandatory time in the slam and even
possession of handgun ammunition can get you in trouble.

It might be safer to send the gun and ammo on ahead via UPS or FedEx.



It would, but a law abiding citizen shouldn't have to do that. If a
state is that anti-gun they should make arrangements for these odd
situations. Storing the firearm at the airport in the temporary custody
of the local law enforcement would be a simple fix. With his travel
plans predetermined, common sense should have prevailed. He was taken
into custody when he attempted to board his plane and declared his
firearm to the carrier as you would normally do. He wasn't a threat at
any point and could have chosen to not declare the weapon in his checked
bag that likely would have no been noticed. He was arrested for
following the law. Go figure.

Update on Clerk Kim Davis
 

On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 22:48:35 -0400, Alex wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 06 Sep 2015 17:33:15 -0400, wrote:

Another example, but opposite in how it affects us as citizens:

There is no Federal law that prohibits the
lawful owner of a firearm from traveling anywhere in the country with it
in his/her possession. It must be unloaded and out of reach or in a
locked container. Felons and several other status categories are
prohibited but in fact there is a federal law known as the "Firearms
Owners’ Protection Act, or FOPA, that protects those who are
transporting firearms for lawful purposes from local restrictions which
would otherwise prohibit passage."

Yet, many states and localities, especially along the east coast, have
laws against having a firearm with you, even when just passing through.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...supreme-court/
===

I've heard of cases like that at NY airports where people found
themselves with an unlicensed gun after their connecting flight was
canceled. In NY that will get you mandatory time in the slam and even
possession of handgun ammunition can get you in trouble.

It might be safer to send the gun and ammo on ahead via UPS or FedEx.



It would, but a law abiding citizen shouldn't have to do that. If a
state is that anti-gun they should make arrangements for these odd
situations. Storing the firearm at the airport in the temporary custody
of the local law enforcement would be a simple fix. With his travel
plans predetermined, common sense should have prevailed. He was taken
into custody when he attempted to board his plane and declared his
firearm to the carrier as you would normally do. He wasn't a threat at
any point and could have chosen to not declare the weapon in his checked
bag that likely would have no been noticed. He was arrested for
following the law. Go figure.

===

In the northeastern states, common sense and gun laws are not usually
found in the same sentence. Support the NRA whether you like them or
not. They are just about the only organization with the political
muscle to stop the nonsense from spreading.