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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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




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

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

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



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

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

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


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

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



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

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

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

It is an interesting legal conundrum.

On 9/4/15 1:03 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 12:19:28 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:



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

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

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

It is an interesting legal conundrum.


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

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

On 9/4/15 1:03 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 12:19:28 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:



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

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

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

It is an interesting legal conundrum.


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

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

In article qtljuadp2f0gp99jikqfe58pa3iprpngbo@
4ax.com, says...


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

Legally sound? She's in jail.
The only "political" part is coming from her.

On 9/4/2015 4:49 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article qtljuadp2f0gp99jikqfe58pa3iprpngbo@
4ax.com, says...


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

Legally sound? She's in jail.
The only "political" part is coming from her.



My wife and I lived in a rented apartment in Zion, Ill. for almost two
years in the early 70's. Zion was founded around 1905 by a very
religious guy who wanted to create a "Christian Utopia". No drinking,
smoking ... the original city council didn't even allow a doctor to set
up shop in the town because they believed in "divine healing".

Even when we lived there the town was still dry. No booze or beer could
be sold anywhere within the city limits.

I suppose if then were now, a federal judge could come along and order
the grocery stores to start carrying/selling beer and ordering the city
council to approve permits to open liquor stores.

In article o_KdnYh8h68cl3fInZ2dnUU7-
, says...


I suppose if then were now, a federal judge could come along and order
the grocery stores to start carrying/selling beer and ordering the city
council to approve permits to open liquor stores.

By the same token, the Feds may make sales of bologna
permissible only on Tuesdays.
But they won't, because neither beer or bologna sales
falls within the ambit of "civil rights."
You are free to make a case for them, however.

On 9/4/15 5:17 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 9/4/2015 4:49 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article qtljuadp2f0gp99jikqfe58pa3iprpngbo@
4ax.com, says...


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

Legally sound? She's in jail.
The only "political" part is coming from her.



My wife and I lived in a rented apartment in Zion, Ill. for almost two
years in the early 70's. Zion was founded around 1905 by a very
religious guy who wanted to create a "Christian Utopia". No drinking,
smoking ... the original city council didn't even allow a doctor to set
up shop in the town because they believed in "divine healing".

Even when we lived there the town was still dry. No booze or beer could
be sold anywhere within the city limits.

I suppose if then were now, a federal judge could come along and order
the grocery stores to start carrying/selling beer and ordering the city
council to approve permits to open liquor stores.



How interesting. What part of the Constitution, Amendments, or civil
rights legislation would that fall under?

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:17:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 9/4/2015 4:49 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article qtljuadp2f0gp99jikqfe58pa3iprpngbo@
4ax.com, says...


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

Legally sound? She's in jail.
The only "political" part is coming from her.



My wife and I lived in a rented apartment in Zion, Ill. for almost two
years in the early 70's. Zion was founded around 1905 by a very
religious guy who wanted to create a "Christian Utopia". No drinking,
smoking ... the original city council didn't even allow a doctor to set
up shop in the town because they believed in "divine healing".

Even when we lived there the town was still dry. No booze or beer could
be sold anywhere within the city limits.

I suppose if then were now, a federal judge could come along and order
the grocery stores to start carrying/selling beer and ordering the city
council to approve permits to open liquor stores.



.... or an abortion clinic. ;-)

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:49:19 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article qtljuadp2f0gp99jikqfe58pa3iprpngbo@
4ax.com, says...


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

Legally sound? She's in jail.
The only "political" part is coming from her.

Rosa Parks was in jail too, so what.

Her actions are religious, not political.
Unfortunately that makes it political.

I have heard from Dan Savage and Rachel but we haven't heard much
from lawyers. I still contend, the Ky marriage statute was over turned
and the legislature has not replaced it, so there is no law.
Same with DOMA.
The court does not write law, they just over turn law.

I wonder how long it will be before someone who wants to dump their
spouse, says the marriage in one of these states never legally existed
because the law was flawed at the time.