| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#82
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
#83
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
|
#84
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
|
#85
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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? |
|
#86
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#87
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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... |
|
#88
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#89
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#90
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Michele Davis | General | |||
| Watch this clerk dance! - Feel Good! | General | |||
| Watch this clerk dance! - Feel Good! | Cruising | |||
| Watch this clerk dance! - Feel Good! | Boat Building | |||
| Davis wind meter | Cruising | |||
Linear Mode
