# Federal judge orders County Clerk to issue same sex licens



## Bearfootfarm

Federal judge orders Rowan County Clerk to issue same sex licenses
http://www.kentucky.com/2015/08/12/3...an-county.html


> A federal judge on Wednesday ordered Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis to resume issuing marriage licenses despite her religious objection to same-sex marriage, but Davis quickly filed an appeal.
> 
> U.S. District Judge David Bunning granted a preliminary injunction against Davis sought by four Rowan County couples who applied for marriage licenses. Davis has refused to issue any marriage licenses in her county since June 26, when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage and Gov. Steve Beshear instructed all 120 of Kentucky's county clerks to comply with the court's decision.
> 
> "Davis has arguably (violated the First Amendment) by openly adopting a policy that promotes her own religious convictions at the expense of others," Bunning wrote.


----------



## Fennick

If Davis refused to perform her duties on June 26th then she should have been summarily fired from her job on June 27th, booted to the curb and replaced by somebody who'd do the job they're paid to do. All that other stuff with injunctions and appeals is just a lot of namby-pamby nonsense. What a bunch of whoosies.


----------



## arabian knight

I hope the appeals go on and on and on. This bullying by the oh so better then then rest gay crowd has got to STOP~!


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

This is not bullying by the gay crowd. It's exactly the opposite. As much as I hate to see it come from "my" side, this is a case of bullying by the "right".

This is not a lady who privately owns a cake shop saying she doesn't want to participate in the planning and execution of a same-sex wedding by meeting with the couple, designing the cake, baking it, and delivering it to them.

This is a government official saying that she won't issue a license for a deemed-legal wedding because of her own religious beliefs. She can campaign for a change in the law, while continuing to do her job, but she still has to do that job in the meantime if she expects to hold the position and be paid for it. 

She can't have it both ways. If she refuses to do the job the People hired her for, she's got to go.


----------



## Farmerga

If she doesn't want to issue the licenses she should quit.


----------



## Evons hubby

I have worked at several jobs over the years and there was always an unwritten rule.... Failure to perform the duties you were hired to do meant your being fired and replaced by someone who would. What's so tough to understand?


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have worked at several jobs over the years and there was always an unwritten rule.... Failure to perform the duties you were hired to do meant your being fired and replaced by someone who would. What's so tough to understand?


Have you had much luck firing an elected official quickly or often. There is that sacred political process and due process ya know.


----------



## 7thswan

Did I see on tv ,she was arrested?


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> Have you had much luck firing an elected official quickly or often. There is that sacred political process and due process ya know.


Nope, I have never been in the position of having an elected official as an employee. I have had occasion to witness a court clerk get fired though. Something about pilfering tax money for private use.... She was gone within hours. Relieved of all duties until the issue was resolved, a temp hired to replace her until we elected a new person.


----------



## where I want to

This is a much more simple thing leading to more complicated issues than she has the job and should just do it. It's the result of rules made for people without their consent. In this case, a government order in conflict with a previously accepted value. And not even a change based on legislation but on a judicial ruling.
Whether it is a moral position to follow those changes is the question.
If a person was order to arrange transport for the purposes of mass murder of a group because their job is to manage railways, such as occured in Nazi controlled areas, and they refused and stood their ground, they would now be considered heroes doing the right thing. But if they refused to follow orders that allow freedom of travel based on the desire to restrict such freedom according to race, they would be villains. 
To simply quit is to become accomplices in the actions because it allows them to proceed without impediment.
So a painful time can be expected. A consequence of government reaching into people's lives whether right or wrong.


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> I hope the appeals go on and on and on. This bullying by the oh so better then then rest gay crowd has got to STOP~!


This issue is a lost cause, if for no other reason than you can't fight a Supreme Court decision within the court system. I see no possibility of prevailing in court when the courts they're filing appeals at are bound by the same decision they're fighting. Lower courts CAN'T rule in their favor.

Since gay the marriage decision was an individual constitutional rights ruling, I don't see any hope for federal law changing it. The only hope to fight this would be a constitutional amendment, which would go up against public opinion. With more than 60% of Americans in favor of gay marriage I don't see that happening.


----------



## Evons hubby

where I want to said:


> This is a much more simple thing leading to more complicated issues than she has the job and should just do it. It's the result of rules made for people without their consent. In this case, a government order in conflict with a previously accepted value. And not even a change based on legislation but on a judicial ruling.
> Whether it is a moral position to follow those changes is the question.
> If a person was order to arrange transport for the purposes of mass murder of a group because their job is to manage railways, such as occured in Nazi controlled areas, and they refused and stood their ground, they would now be considered heroes doing the right thing. But if they refused to follow orders that allow freedom of travel based on the desire to restrict such freedom according to race, they would be villains.
> To simply quit is to become accomplices in the actions because it allows them to proceed without impediment.
> So a painful time can be expected. A consequence of government reaching into people's lives whether right or wrong.


If your boss asks you to do something that goes against your principles.... Find another job. It's really just that simple.


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> This issue is a lost cause, if for no other reason than you can't fight a Supreme Court decision within the court system. I see no possibility of prevailing in court when the courts they're filing appeals at are bound by the same decision they're fighting. Lower courts CAN'T rule in their favor.
> 
> Since gay the marriage decision was an individual constitutional rights ruling, I don't see any hope for federal law changing it. The only hope to fight this would be a constitutional amendment, which would go up against public opinion. With more than 60% of Americans in favor of gay marriage I don't see that happening.


Except the next Supreme Court decision has been known to change and earlier one.


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, I have never been in the position of having an elected official as an employee. I have had occasion to witness a court clerk get fired though. Something about pilfering tax money for private use.... She was gone within hours. Relieved of all duties until the issue was resolved, a temp hired to replace her until we elected a new person.


Interesting, though I did read where the governor did request that she resign. So if an elected official can be fired why has the governor not done that? It is entertaining watching both sides, to bad we pay pay for it. I wish for the government to be out of marriage completely.


----------



## where I want to

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If your boss asks you to do something that goes against your principles.... Find another job. It's really just that simple.


I guess then whistleblowers have no place in your vision of government hierarchy.

I personally had been ordered to do things that were unprincipled by an unprincipled official and refused. Paid a price but in the end they were gone in disgrace and I was still there.

Little is as simple as you would have it to be.


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If your boss asks you to do something that goes against your principles.... Find another job. It's really just that simple.


Is not her boss the PEOPLE of her County?


----------



## Evons hubby

dlmcafee said:


> Interesting, though I did read where the governor did request that she resign. So if an elected official can be fired why has the governor not done that? It is entertaining watching both sides, to bad we pay pay for it. I wish for the government to be out of marriage completely.


Ok, I'm not sure but I don't think our governor has the power to fire a county clerk, pretty sure that would be the county judge executives place. County clerks are not state employees, they are county employees.


----------



## where I want to

Personally, I think it is spitting into the wind to refuse to issue a license but I have sympathy for those, who through no fault of their own, are caught in that dilemma.


----------



## where I want to

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I'm not sure but I don't think our governor has the power to fire a county clerk, pretty sure that would be the county judge executives place. County clerks are not state employees, they are county employees.


Around here, even a criminal case can not remove an elected official until conviction. Only a recall.


----------



## hippygirl

As much as some may not like it, it's the law. I assume she agreed to perform her duties within the scope of the law, so if she doesn't, she should be removed from that position. It really IS that simple.


----------



## where I want to

hippygirl said:


> As much as some may not like it, it's the law. I assume she agreed to perform her duties within the scope of the law, so if she doesn't, she should be removed from that position. It really IS that simple.


If she was elected, who has the right to just remove her and under what conditions? The laws that govern elected officials and are specific to they country and state control it. 
However some may dislike it, it may (I don't know their rules) not be that simple.

in the county above us a DA was disbarred yet refused to leave his position even though he could not participate in court cases any longer. As special election took place to replace him.


----------



## Guest

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I'm not sure but I don't think our governor has the power to fire a county clerk, pretty sure that would be the county judge executives place. County clerks are not state employees, they are county employees.


From my quick review of your constitution I agree he does not have the power to fire a county clerk. The office is an elected position and removal by referendum is required I believe, arresting her and and replacing with a temporary clerk may be an option until a replacement election is held. Any way it ain't so cut and dry when you deal with elected officials.


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> Except the next Supreme Court decision has been known to change and earlier one.


It's rare. Gays have been declared a class that's deserving of constitutional protection. We would need a compelling reason to deny that class constitutional rights, and the fact that it makes a few Americans uncomfortable isn't compelling enough to overturn a Supreme Court decision. If that was the case then mixed race marriages would be illegal today.

I don't expect the Supreme Court to ever overturn this decision, and it certainly won't happen during our lifetime.


----------



## Guest

Nevada said:


> It's rare. Gays have been declared a class that's deserving of constitutional protection. We would need a compelling reason to deny that class constitutional rights, and the fact that it makes a few Americans uncomfortable isn't compelling enough to overturn a Supreme Court decision. If that was the case then mixed race marriages would be illegal today.
> 
> I don't expect the Supreme Court to ever overturn this decision, and it certainly won't happen during our lifetime.


Not absolutely positive but I believe this clerk refused all licences not just gays, because of her beliefs. Muddies the waters a bit when all are denied, is it discrimination to a subset alone?


----------



## Nevada

dlmcafee said:


> Not absolutely positive but I believe this clerk refused all licences not just gays, because of her beliefs. Muddies the waters a bit when all are denied, is it discrimination to a subset alone?


Well, the county will take care of that. I can't imagine they'll keep a clerk on payroll who refuses to execute the duties of his office. They'll have to remove him for malfeasance, then find someone who is willing to issue licenses.


----------



## Guest

Nevada said:


> Well, the county will take care of that. I can't imagine they'll keep a clerk on payroll who refuses to execute the duties of his office. They'll have to remove him for malfeasance, then find someone who is willing to issue licenses.


Probably but as noted it is an elected office, the people have to fire her. Think we as a people can get that done easily,,,I wish I would be for firing a LOT more.


----------



## Nevada

dlmcafee said:


> Probably but as noted it is an elected office, the people have to fire her.


I don't know the laws of Texas, but normally county commissioners have the authority to hold malfeasance hearings and remove an elected official. No?


----------



## hippygirl

where I want to said:


> If she was elected, who has the right to just remove her and under what conditions? The laws that govern elected officials and are specific to they country and state control it.
> However some may dislike it, it may (I don't know their rules) not be that simple.
> 
> in the county above us a DA was disbarred yet refused to leave his position even though he could not participate in court cases any longer. As special election took place to replace him.


I didn't say HOW she should be removed, only that she SHOULD be removed if she fails to perform the duties as required by her position and the law.

While it may not be simple to remove her, the concept that she should be is.


----------



## Guest

Nevada said:


> I don't know the laws of Texas, but normally county commissioners have the authority to hold malfeasance hearings and remove an elected official. No?


Rowan County, Kentucky, Clerk Kim Davis is the subject. Not in Kentucky, from my readings it appears constitutionality, upon conviction of a misdemeanor or more, or by referendum (vote of the people).


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

where I want to said:


> ...
> Whether it is a moral position to follow those changes is the question.
> If a person was order to arrange transport for the purposes of mass murder of a group because their job is to manage railways, such as occured in Nazi controlled areas, and they refused and stood their ground, they would now be considered heroes doing the right thing. But if they refused to follow orders that allow freedom of travel based on the desire to restrict such freedom according to race, they would be villains.
> To simply quit is to become accomplices in the actions because it allows them to proceed without impediment...


That analogy would (somewhat) work if we were talking about a case where they were attempting to force a minister to perform a gay wedding. Unfortunately, I think that issue is an eventuality, but it is a separate discussion.

There are two components to a marriage: the spiritual covenant, and the civil contract. To many, like myself, the spiritual covenant is the only component that means anything, but others only care about the contractual element, while others care about both.

The component that the county employee is tasked with is issuing a license for the civil-contract. She is not being asked to perform the wedding, and she is not being asked to give her consent or blessing to the spiritual covenant. She is only being asked to provide a license; the paper document that grants the state's permission to seek a civil contract.

In essence, she is claiming a religious objection to two people agreeing to share employment health benefits, tax filing privileges, inheritance procedures, and the right to not incriminate each other in court. She'd have exactly as much standing to claim a religious objection in order to refuse to issue a license to a person who likes vanilla ice cream to enter into a contract with someone who prefers chocolate. 

If a judge then executes the license, the couple will have a civil contract, which has nothing to with God, spirituality, or religion. If they find a minister who agrees to marry them before God, then they will also enter into the spiritual covenant, according to their and their minster's beliefs. The commissioner doesn't have to have anything to do with this component. She doesn't have to accept it. She doesn't have to recognize it. She doesn't even have to smile and wish the new couple good luck when they walk by.

The government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage. It's none of their business, and, in my opinion, the civil contract is meaningless. If you believe in the spiritual covenant, then seek one when you choose your mate. 

A more accurate analogy than your Nazi train conductor one: This woman works for the County Department of Tits on Bulls. 

She should be laughing her way to the bank with her check each week and enjoy those government-employee benefits.


----------



## Nevada

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> If a judge then executes the license, the couple will have a civil contract


A license is not a contract, and a contract is not a license. Marriage is a government license that allows two people to operate as a single legal entity (a marital 'community') and to take advantage of certain government benefits.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Nevada said:


> A license is not a contract, and a contract is not a license. Marriage is a government license that allows two people to operate as a single legal entity (a marital 'community') and to take advantage of certain government benefits.


Semantics, brother.

I said basically the same thing referencing the functions of what I called the _civil contract_ above. Both the paperwork we had to read prior to being issued our license in Ohio, and paperwork a friend had to read and sign in AZ before getting his, referred to it as a "contract" between the state, and the people to be wed.

So, I'll beg your pardon, and then move on with my life.


----------



## Guest

Nevada said:


> A license is not a contract, and a contract is not a license. Marriage is a government license that allows two people to operate as a single legal entity (a marital 'community') and to take advantage of certain government benefits.


Yep, a licence does not confer contractual rights in fact a license negates them by insisting you have no right in the matter, only the privileges bestowed by the state on their terms.
There is your freedom for you.


----------



## Nevada

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Semantics, brother.
> 
> I said basically the same thing referencing the functions of what I called the _civil contract_ above. Both the paperwork we had to read prior to being issued our license in Ohio, and paperwork a friend had to read and sign in AZ before getting his, referred to it as a "contract" between the state, and the people to be wed.
> 
> So, I'll beg your pardon, and then move on with my life.


Here's an online marriage license application for Columbus, OH (Franklin County).

https://www.franklincountyohio.gov/probate/apps/PBMLFORM1.shtml

What part of that application looks like a contract to you?


----------



## where I want to

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/can-government-get-out-of-the-marriage-business/

"Hereâs the deal:- much of the significance of marriage is very much linked to civil-legal matters in a way that makes it impossible for government to extricate itself from its definition.- Marriage is many things that have nothing to do with government such as romance, love, friendship, lifelong companionship, and even sacred bonds.- There is- little doubt that those things can all be achieved without the government being involved (as is the case with friendship, for example).- However, marriage is also about certain mutual legal obligations regarding property, finances, children and whatnot, about which governmental intervention is sometimes necessary to resolve disputes (as is the case with any contractual relationship).- Further, marriage diminishes legal complexity in a variety issues (children, death [i.e., funeral arrangements], hospital visitations, medical decisions, etc.).- Now, we could utterly remove marriage as a legal institution, but then we would have to replace it with something else, and that something else would almost certainly be more cumbersome in terms of government entanglements that the current system."


And this is concisely the whole ball of wax and the only reason gay marriage was so pushed an issue. For all the nonsense about love, it's sheer money. Who gets it and who controls it and who pays it. 

Originally the only individual records a government kept were ones of interest to the government, like anything that was related to taxes and property ownership. 

The only marriage records were religious records, except for the inclusion and exclusion of individuals off the tax related records. Same for birth and death. And, in many countries, there was little seperation between church and state, so one recording an event was just as good as the other. The church set the rules of marriage, part of which was a waiting period after announcement. Then the church started issuing exceptions to their own rules. And these were the original licenses that subsequently became a government function.

So, despite the anti religonists, the cries of get religion out of marriage, licenses are really simply a demand to be included in the religion based definition. 

Just one more clear case where letting the government into anything will mean something much different in the end. Surrendering control for convenience seems to mean to eventually lose the convenience while the control remains.


"


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Nevada said:


> Here's an online marriage license application for Columbus, OH (Franklin County).
> 
> https://www.franklincountyohio.gov/probate/apps/PBMLFORM1.shtml
> 
> What part of that application looks like a contract to you?


Hey, NV:



GunMonkeyIntl said:


> ... Both the *paperwork we had to read prior to being issued our license in Ohio*, and paperwork a friend had to read and sign in AZ before getting his, referred to it as a "contract" between the state, and the people to be wed...


What part of _that_ looks like I said that the license application was a contract?

I can't believe I'm having to quote _myself_ in a response to you, and about something so STUPID as the distinction between what a license is and what a contract is. 

***IYM??


----------



## Nevada

where I want to said:


> The only marriage records were religious records, except for the inclusion and exclusion of individuals off the tax related records. Same for birth and death.


That was fine before income tax and social security. Today marriage is a license to qualify for benefits that are extremely important to most married people. The government has to be involved to limit and administrate those benefits.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Nevada said:


> That was fine before income tax and social security. Today marriage is a license to qualify for benefits that are extremely important to most married people. The government has to be involved to limit and administrate those benefits.


To quote the most annoying obtuse and hypocritical member in the history of HT "Just because you say so, doesn't make it true."

The government doesn't "have" to be involved in marriage to limit and administrate any benefits. The government invented those benefits, and they had no place doing that either. 

The government's only involvement should come when the marriage contract (yes, I'm going to call it that again, now that I realize why you were arguing such a nettlingly small point)...when the marriage contract needs to be broken for infidelity, abuse, etc., and only the judicial branch at that. When a marriage contract needs to be broken, we need the courts to settle things, but the government has no business giving extra benefits, or taking fewer benefits AWAY, as it were, because they've decided to favor the class of married people. 

Take off the progressive-colored glasses every once in a while, NV.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Is not her boss the PEOPLE of her County?


Of course not.
It's the "people" she is refusing to serve
She is bound to follow the laws of the State and Federal Govts, and keep her religion out of it


----------



## where I want to

Nevada said:


> That was fine before income tax and social security. Today marriage is a license to qualify for benefits that are extremely important to most married people. The government has to be involved to limit and administrate those benefits.


I was very tempted to let this go. Especially as I have previously made the point that government, while intrusive and expanding, is not in control of who gets married and how. No one needs a license from the government to form a marriage. One only needs to prove that marriage meets the same definition. Having a license is just a short hand way of proving the standards are met and, if followed by a recognized ceremony, either secular or religious, having a marriage recognized without jumping through a lot of hoops.
As long as it is possible to form a marriage that looks like a marriage except for a defect in following the prescribed steps, every government entity has a long list of ways to meet the different ways people end up getting married. 
Licensing and ceremony are only a way of avoiding the need to establish relationship by other means.
The reason I can't let it go is because this idea that the government controls marriage leads to way too much ceding of power. The purpose of government should be to regularize what people ALREADY DO, not make people do what they don't do. 
To think otherwise is to give away human rights. You have it directly backwards- the government does not create, it agrees to follow.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, I'm not sure but I don't think our governor has the power to fire a county clerk, pretty sure that would be the county judge executives place. *County clerks are not state employees*, they are county employees.


In NC, County Govts are considered an extension of the State Govt, and are subject to all the same regulations. 

They are paid by the counties, but are still considered "state employees" in most regards

Most County regulations or ordinances have to be approved by the State before taking effect

A Clerk of Court would likely have a State judge as her immediate superior


----------



## kasilofhome

May she be blessed with strength and peace.


----------



## Nevada

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> The government doesn't "have" to be involved in marriage to limit and administrate any benefits. The government invented those benefits, and they had no place doing that either.


The alternative to government administrating marriage is to end those benefits. You won't get far promoting that idea.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> Of course not.
> 
> It's the "people" she is refusing to serve
> 
> She is bound to follow the laws of the State and Federal Govts, and keep her religion out of it



Ok, if she is an elected official who is her boss? The legislature of Kentucky maybe, who has no power over her except after a conviction of a crime or the people who can replace her by votes in a recall referendum.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> In NC, County Govts are considered an extension of the State Govt, and are subject to all the same regulations.
> 
> 
> 
> They are paid by the counties, but are still considered "state employees" in most regards
> 
> 
> 
> Most County regulations or ordinances have to be approved by the State before taking effect
> 
> 
> 
> A Clerk of Court would likely have a State judge as her immediate superior



Are you assuming North Carolina and Kentucky government structure, procedures and laws are the same? County clerks and court clerks are not the same thing in Ky. Unless enacted recently removal of an elected official requires a crime or an election constitutionally in KY. I was unable to find KY statutory law addressing this other than it was not in the statute.


----------



## Guest

Nevada said:


> The alternative to government administrating marriage is to end those benefits. You won't get far promoting that idea.



I would support that. How far it would get is not an excuse for not trying, just the cowards way of submission (generally speaking of course)


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> Ok, if she is an elected official who is her boss? The legislature of Kentucky maybe, who has no power over her except after a conviction of a crime or the people who can replace her by votes in a recall referendum.


Ask her:
http://rowancountyclerk.com/contact-us/


----------



## Bearfootfarm

dlmcafee said:


> *Are you assuming North Carolina and Kentucky government structure, procedures and laws are the same? * County clerks and court clerks are not the same thing in Ky. Unless enacted recently removal of an elected official requires a crime or an election constitutionally in KY. I was unable to find KY statutory law addressing this other than it was not in the statute.


I'm not assuming anything, and never said they were the same.
Don't look for hidden meanings


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Nevada said:


> The alternative to government administrating marriage is to end those benefits. You won't get far promoting that idea.


I think the difference there is the difference in our glass half-full/half-empty outlooks. 

When you look at the government granting benefits to married people though tax incentives and SS benefits. I see the same thing as married people getting a reduction in what the government _takes_ from us compared to everyone else. 

Part and parcel to getting the government out of our marriage-business would be getting them out of the redistribution business. 

I shouldn't pay less income tax than anyone else just because I'm married.
...because...
I shouldn't pay ANY income tax, and neither should anyone else.


----------



## Nevada

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> Part and parcel to getting the government out of our marriage-business would be getting them out of the redistribution business.


That's not going to happen, and you know it. In fact it would be political suicide to even bring it up.


----------



## Guest

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm not assuming anything, and never said they were the same.
> 
> Don't look for hidden meanings



I see, just a North Carolina civics lesson. Okay my mistake with the relevance.


----------



## arabian knight

Nevada said:


> That's not going to happen, and you know it. In fact it would be political suicide to even bring it up.


 That cake one is going to the DC that came out TODAY. LOL This STUFF this ( doo doo ) is not over with, not by a long shot~! We can't have such a a few defecating on the Constitution either. Just because Obama does no reason for those people to do it. LOL


----------



## Nevada

arabian knight said:


> That cake one is going to the DC that came out TODAY. LOL This STUFF this ( doo doo ) is not over with, not by a long shot~! We can't have such a a few defecating on the Constitution either. Just because Obama does no reason for those people to do it. LOL


Let me ask you, you're OK with ending federal benefits? No SS and no Medicare. Where would that leave you?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> That cake one is *going to the DC* that came out TODAY. LOL This STUFF this ( doo doo ) is not over with, not by a long shot~! We can't have such a a few defecating on the Constitution either. Just because Obama does no reason for those people to do it. LOL


It won't matter where it goes, the end result isn't going to change.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> Let me ask you, you're OK with ending federal benefits? No SS and no Medicare. Where would that leave you?


It would leave me shopping the lower shelves at the liquor store. Where would it leave you?


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It would leave me shopping the lower shelves at the liquor store. Where would it leave you?


I'd turn my computer hobby into a business pretty fast.


----------



## Shine

hippygirl said:


> As much as some may not like it, it's the law. I assume she agreed to perform her duties within the scope of the law, so if she doesn't, she should be removed from that position. It really IS that simple.


I would also bet that within the paperwork that was signed was the delimiter: "...to the best of my ability..."


----------



## Patchouli

dlmcafee said:


> Probably but as noted it is an elected office, the people have to fire her. Think we as a people can get that done easily,,,I wish I would be for firing a LOT more.


This is a bit of a rabbit trail but I think politicians might be a little more honest if there was an easy way to revoke their position within months of them taking office.


----------



## Patchouli

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> That analogy would (somewhat) work if we were talking about a case where they were attempting to force a minister to perform a gay wedding. Unfortunately, I think that issue is an eventuality, but it is a separate discussion.
> 
> There are two components to a marriage: the spiritual covenant, and the civil contract. To many, like myself, the spiritual covenant is the only component that means anything, but others only care about the contractual element, while others care about both.
> 
> The component that the county employee is tasked with is issuing a license for the civil-contract. She is not being asked to perform the wedding, and she is not being asked to give her consent or blessing to the spiritual covenant. She is only being asked to provide a license; the paper document that grants the state's permission to seek a civil contract.
> 
> In essence, she is claiming a religious objection to two people agreeing to share employment health benefits, tax filing privileges, inheritance procedures, and the right to not incriminate each other in court. She'd have exactly as much standing to claim a religious objection in order to refuse to issue a license to a person who likes vanilla ice cream to enter into a contract with someone who prefers chocolate.
> 
> If a judge then executes the license, the couple will have a civil contract, which has nothing to with God, spirituality, or religion. If they find a minister who agrees to marry them before God, then they will also enter into the spiritual covenant, according to their and their minster's beliefs. The commissioner doesn't have to have anything to do with this component. She doesn't have to accept it. She doesn't have to recognize it. She doesn't even have to smile and wish the new couple good luck when they walk by.
> 
> The government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage. It's none of their business, and, in my opinion, the civil contract is meaningless. If you believe in the spiritual covenant, then seek one when you choose your mate.
> 
> A more accurate analogy than your Nazi train conductor one: This woman works for the County Department of Tits on Bulls.
> 
> She should be laughing her way to the bank with her check each week and enjoy those government-employee benefits.


:goodjob: That's the most brilliant sum up I have seen so far of the marriage situation.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I would also bet that within the paperwork that was signed was the delimiter: "...to the best of my ability..."


Assumption
No source, no citations


----------



## Nevada

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> The government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage. It's none of their business, and, in my opinion, the civil contract is meaningless. If you believe in the spiritual covenant, then seek one when you choose your mate.


It's interesting how few people take a spiritual covenant without a government-issued license. They have that option, but they all seem to want a license.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Nevada said:


> It's interesting how few people take a spiritual covenant without a government-issued license. They have that option, but they all seem to want a license.


It's equally interesting how many ministers, subject to the other "non-profit" intrusions our government has placed on our religious institutions, require the couple to bring them a license, in order to not lose their own license to conduct the ceremony. 

That, my friend, is the self-licking ice cream cone that is government regulation. 


My grandfather married my wife and I. And, rather than do it at his kitchen table where we wanted it done, drove 10 miles to cross the county line in order to speak for us, in front of Him, in the same county that issued our license. 

My wife and I spoke our promise on a wide spot on the highway (a tractor ramp) next to a cornfield in a blowing April snow because your beloved government thought they had a say in the Thing we were doing there. My grandmother wasn't able to witness it because of her diverticulitis acting up, but she had a hot pot of pintos and fresh cornbread waiting on us when we all got back and shook the snow off. 

Thanks government of the people, by the people, for the people!!!


----------



## Evons hubby

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> It's equally interesting how many ministers, subject to the other "non-profit" intrusions our government has placed on our religious institutions, require the couple to bring them a license, in order to not lose their own license to conduct the ceremony.
> 
> That, my friend, is the self-licking ice cream cone that is government regulation.
> 
> 
> My grandfather married my wife and I. And, rather than do it at his kitchen table where we wanted it done, drove 10 miles to cross the county line in order to speak for us, in front of Him, in the same county that issued our license.
> 
> My wife and I spoke our promise on a wide spot on the highway (a tractor ramp) next to a cornfield in a blowing April snow because your beloved government thought they had a say in the Thing we were doing there. My grandmother wasn't able to witness it because of her diverticulitis acting up, but she had a hot pot of pintos and fresh cornbread waiting on us when we all got back and shook the snow off.
> 
> Thanks government of the people, by the people, for the people!!!


where did you get the notion that our government was ever supposed to be of, for and by the people? Surely not that line dishonest Abe plagerized?


----------



## Nevada

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> It's equally interesting how many ministers, subject to the other "non-profit" intrusions our government has placed on our religious institutions, require the couple to bring them a license, in order to not lose their own license to conduct the ceremony.
> 
> That, my friend, is the self-licking ice cream cone that is government regulation.
> 
> 
> My grandfather married my wife and I. And, rather than do it at his kitchen table where we wanted it done, drove 10 miles to cross the county line in order to speak for us, in front of Him, in the same county that issued our license.
> 
> My wife and I spoke our promise on a wide spot on the highway (a tractor ramp) next to a cornfield in a blowing April snow because your beloved government thought they had a say in the Thing we were doing there. My grandmother wasn't able to witness it because of her diverticulitis acting up, but she had a hot pot of pintos and fresh cornbread waiting on us when we all got back and shook the snow off.
> 
> Thanks government of the people, by the people, for the people!!!


Maybe now is a good time to point out that under Sharia law the government isn't allowed to get involved in marriage.


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Nevada said:


> Maybe now is a good time to point out that under Sharia law the government isn't allowed to get involved in marriage.


Is it?

I've been pretty clear in the past that I want religion out of my government. Reference my posts early in the "If there is no God..." thread. 

God has no trouble getting my attention and speaking to me without a bureaucrat betwixt us to relay the message.


----------



## farmrbrown

Nevada said:


> Maybe now is a good time to point out that under Sharia law the government isn't allowed to get involved in marriage.


Sure, good info is always appreciated.
I'd also like to point out that those of us who own a pair, don't allow gov't to involve itself in our business when we don't approve either......


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

farmrbrown said:


> Sure, good info is always appreciated.
> I'd also like to point out that those of us who own a pair, don't allow gov't to involve itself in our business when we don't approve either......


A "pair"? 

A pair of sturdy boots?
A pair of loaded spare magazines?

A pair of what? 
I'm sorry. I'm slow sometimes.


----------



## tlrnnp67




----------



## Bearfootfarm

A pair of waders will be needed if it gets any deeper


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Nevada said:


> The alternative to government administrating marriage is to end those benefits. You won't get far promoting that idea.


You see, though, the things is; I'm not running for any political office. 
Don't intend to, and wouldn't serve the term if you tried to give it to me. 


The other thing is, though, that there was a whole group of fellas who saw things the way I do, and they managed to change the world all without giving a single crossways-caught ---- about ever holding a political office.


----------



## farmrbrown

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> A "pair"?
> 
> A pair of sturdy boots?
> A pair of loaded spare magazines?
> 
> A pair of what?
> I'm sorry. I'm slow sometimes.


The pair resides about 30 inches above your boots, give or take..........:hrm:


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

Oh. Got those too. I just never associated those with not wanting the government to meddle where it don't belong. 

You should meet my wife and my aunts sometime.


----------



## Patchouli

tlrnnp67 said:


>


That was the thing that got me. Kind of hard to be all about the sanctity of marriage when you are on your 4th.


----------



## kasilofhome

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> A "pair"?
> 
> A pair of sturdy boots?
> A pair of loaded spare magazines?
> 
> A pair of what?
> I'm sorry. I'm slow sometimes.




Sometimes found in canning jars


----------



## GunMonkeyIntl

kasilofhome said:


> Sometimes found in canning jars


You're kidding, right?

Michelle wouldn't know a pressure canner if she saw one. You know that whole WH garden bit is for show so that she looks less like a hypocrite when she serves those spare ribs at Barrack's cookouts.


----------



## Patchouli

kasilofhome said:


> Sometimes found in canning jars


Another disturbing factoid about Alaska I wish I did not know..... :umno:


----------



## plowjockey

tlrnnp67 said:


>





> "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." (Matt. 19:3â8; cf. Mark 10:2â9; Luke 16:18)


Jesus didn't particular care for divorce, or for hypocrites either, for that matter.


----------



## where I want to

Patchouli said:


> That was the thing that got me. Kind of hard to be all about the sanctity of marriage when you are on your 4th.


Of all the silly methods of criticism, that sort is the silliest. And most common. The number of divorces has nothing to do with the issue but is just a sort of mudslinging thing. 
I imagine that it would be very easy to find divorces in gay marriages at the same or higher rate considering the length of time such marriages are allowed. So would that mean that there is no validity to allowing gay marriage as it is just as frail an institution as hetero marriage, since you seem to feel that such an issue demeans the clerk's marriage?

It's just saying something smarmy about someone you don't like. Like calling Clinton names. Sheesh, I thought you all were so above that sort of thing (sarcasm in case you canxt tell.)


----------



## farmrbrown

where I want to said:


> Of all the silly methods of criticism, that sort is the silliest. And most common. The number of divorces has nothing to do with the issue but is just a sort of mudslinging thing.
> I imagine that it would be very easy to find divorces in gay marriages at the same or higher rate considering the length of time such marriages are allowed. So would that mean that there is no validity to allowing gay marriage as it is just as frail an institution as hetero marriage, since you seem to feel that such an issue demeans the clerk's marriage?
> 
> It's just saying something smarmy about someone you don't like. Like calling Clinton names. Sheesh, I thought you all were so above that sort of thing (sarcasm in case you canxt tell.)


Actually it does.
I had this discussion with someone on another thread. They kept trying to say that there was no marriage in the Bible, divorce wasn't a divorce, etc. etc.
(Now I remember, it was Nevada, LOL)
Anyway, homosexuality is a form of adultery/fornication.
So it is with divorce.
That doesn't mean it's unforgivable, but people don't like to look at the beam in their own eye before pointing to the splinter in others.


----------



## where I want to

farmrbrown said:


> Actually it does.
> I had this discussion with someone on another thread. They kept trying to say that there was no marriage in the Bible, divorce wasn't a divorce, etc. etc.
> (Now I remember, it was Nevada, LOL)
> Anyway, homosexuality is a form of adultery/fornication.
> So it is with divorce.
> That doesn't mean it's unforgivable, but people don't like to look at the beam in their own eye before pointing to the splinter in others.


So you think that, having committed one crime, that it means every other crime should now be allowed? So, if she thinks that divorce is acceptable, she should no longer treat marriage as having any rules?


----------



## Guest

farmrbrown said:


> Actually it does.
> I had this discussion with someone on another thread. They kept trying to say that there was no marriage in the Bible, divorce wasn't a divorce, etc. etc.
> (Now I remember, it was Nevada, LOL)
> Anyway, homosexuality is a form of adultery/fornication.
> So it is with divorce.
> That doesn't mean it's unforgivable, but people don't like to look at the beam in their own eye before pointing to the splinter in others.


Not being of the Christian faith myself, does your interpretation stand true to all or at best most Christian denominations? I understand your premise, so not meant to be argumentative.


----------



## Nevada

GunMonkeyIntl said:


> It's equally interesting how many ministers, subject to the other "non-profit" intrusions our government has placed on our religious institutions, require the couple to bring them a license, in order to not lose their own license to conduct the ceremony.


It's done all the time here in Las Vegas.

_*4. Can I get married without a marriage license?*
We can perform a ceremony without a marriage license, but it would not be a legal ceremony. So if you are looking to get legally married, then yes, you will need a marriage license. Otherwise, we can perform a ceremony just for fun, and the experience of having a Las Vegas ceremony._
http://www.gracelandchapel.com/faq/


----------



## Patchouli

where I want to said:


> Of all the silly methods of criticism, that sort is the silliest. And most common. The number of divorces has nothing to do with the issue but is just a sort of mudslinging thing.
> I imagine that it would be very easy to find divorces in gay marriages at the same or higher rate considering the length of time such marriages are allowed. So would that mean that there is no validity to allowing gay marriage as it is just as frail an institution as hetero marriage, since you seem to feel that such an issue demeans the clerk's marriage?
> 
> It's just saying something smarmy about someone you don't like. Like calling Clinton names. Sheesh, I thought you all were so above that sort of thing (sarcasm in case you canxt tell.)


Wow. Seriously? *Sanctity of marriage*, did you miss that part? If you are going to try and make some argument that it is against your Christian, biblical beliefs to allow gay marriage then you had best be sticking to the letter of the biblical law yourself. Otherwise you are a hypocrite. The Bible is pretty clear that you need to look to your own life first before you start judging your brother. 

I don't have any personal feelings on the woman herself at all. I don't have much liking for hypocrites though. And unless she is a three time widow I think a hypocrite is exactly what she must be.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

where I want to said:


> So you think that, having committed one crime, that it means every other crime should now be allowed? So, if she thinks that divorce is acceptable, she should no longer treat marriage as having any rules?


She should stop trying to force her rules on anyone else.

She can do anything she likes on her own time


----------



## Patchouli

dlmcafee said:


> Not being of the Christian faith myself, does your interpretation stand true to all or at best most Christian denominations? I understand your premise, so not meant to be argumentative.


Unfortunately while Jesus was crystal clear on this point most Churches these days ignore it because it is too harsh. Which is interesting because his disciples had the exact same reaction back when he first said it. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are still firm on it and I know in some denominations you can no longer hold a position of authority if you are divorced. Pentacostals and Southern Baptists held that for a long time, not sure if they still do. 

Just as a historical tidbit the reason King Edward VIII had to abdicate as King of England back in 1936 was because he wanted to marry a divorced woman and as King he was also the head of the Church of England and you were not allowed to divorce and remarry so long as your spouse was alive under Church Law. So he had to step down from both since these days chopping the head off your spouse is passe'.  




> Matthew 19
> 3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, &#8220;Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for _just_ any reason?&#8221;
> 
> 4 And He answered and said to them, &#8220;Have you not read that He who made[a] _them_ at the beginning &#8216;made them male and female,&#8217;[b] 5 and said, &#8216;For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh&#8217;?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.&#8221;
> 
> 7 They said to Him, &#8220;Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?&#8221;
> 
> 8 He said to them, &#8220;Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality,[d] and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.&#8221;
> 
> 10 His disciples said to Him, &#8220;If such is the case of the man with _his_ wife, it is better not to marry.&#8221;


----------



## Evons hubby

where I want to said:


> So you think that, having committed one crime, that it means every other crime should now be allowed? So, if she thinks that divorce is acceptable, she should no longer treat marriage as having any rules?


Of course marriage has rules and she should follow them by doing her job and issue a marriage license to anyone who is eligible according to those rules. That includes any race, creed, color or sexual orientation.


----------



## where I want to

Patchouli said:


> Wow. Seriously? *Sanctity of marriage*, did you miss that part? If you are going to try and make some argument that it is against your Christian, biblical beliefs to allow gay marriage then you had best be sticking to the letter of the biblical law yourself. Otherwise you are a hypocrite. The Bible is pretty clear that you need to look to your own life first before you start judging your brother.
> 
> I don't have any personal feelings on the woman herself at all. I don't have much liking for hypocrites though. And unless she is a three time widow I think a hypocrite is exactly what she must be.


I doubt anyone posting such an image as a potshot at this woman has any real interest in Biblical validation of their marriage so it is not a real issue for them- just a snarky put down in the same way a junior high schooler calls someone a nerd. 
Imagine someone, who makes it clear that they have comtempt for the Bible, thinking it is some kind of put down to announce that someone else isn't guided by it as non believer interprets it. Certainly a giant gob of hypocrisy there for sure.
Then there is the obliviousness of those making such connections thinking that they understand what this woman believes. Since they haven't a clue, they are simply assigning the worst possible interpretation they can see then pointing to the recipient of their attention and deriding them for not living up to this fictious construct. 
And you might consider that the above applies, both your own words and my response, to your words. You have very little idea of what I believe yet feel free to make your own construct to attack. Tsk tsk tsk.


----------



## where I want to

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Of course marriage has rules and she should follow them by doing her job and issue a marriage license to anyone who is eligible according to those rules. That includes any race, creed, color or sexual orientation.


Right- just apply your interpretation and be done with it. That would end this problem. 
It's a shame that people just keep insisting on their own interpretation. So messy.


----------



## Evons hubby

Does separation of church and state mean anything to anyone? The state has said gay people can marry legally. There are forms to be filled out... If someone's religious belief goes against handing out those forms they need to seek employment elsewhere.


----------



## Patchouli

where I want to said:


> I doubt anyone posting such an image as a potshot at this woman has any real interest in Biblical validation of their marriage so it is not a real issue for them- just a snarky put down in the same way a junior high schooler calls someone a nerd.
> Imagine someone, who makes it clear that they have comtempt for the Bible, thinking it is some kind of put down to announce that someone else isn't guided by it as non believer interprets it. Certainly a giant gob of hypocrisy there for sure.
> Then there is the obliviousness of those making such connections thinking that they understand what this woman believes. Since they haven't a clue, they are simply assigning the worst possible interpretation they can see then pointing to the recipient of their attention and deriding them for not living up to this fictious construct.
> And you might consider that the above applies, both your own words and my response, to your words. You have very little idea of what I believe yet feel free to make your own construct to attack. Tsk tsk tsk.


Once again your response has zero to do with my post so I think I shall just ignore your posts in future. I can't even come up with a response to that it is so far out there. Just keep on arguing with yourself, you seem to be enjoying it. :goodjob:


----------



## Evons hubby

where I want to said:


> Right- just apply your interpretation and be done with it. That would end this problem.
> It's a shame that people just keep insisting on their own interpretation. So messy.


This has nothing to do with my interpretation, it's a matter of the law, which supersedes any individuals personal interpretations.... Mine, yours, or anyone else's.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

where I want to said:


> Of all the silly methods of criticism, that sort is the silliest. And most common.
> 
> *It's just saying something smarmy about someone you don't like*.
> 
> Like calling Clinton names. Sheesh, I thought you all were so above that sort of thing (sarcasm in case you canxt tell.)


Like when you called me a "dog"? 



> It's a shame that people just keep insisting on their own interpretation. So messy.


Yes, they need to leave their religious views at home, and stop bringing them to work when they deal with the public


----------



## where I want to

https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0200305005

"Most jurisdictions require that persons who intend to contract a ceremonial marriage obtain a license; however, the marriage may be valid under state law despite the fact that the parties to the marriage did not secure a license."







Nevada said:


> It's done all the time here in Las Vegas.
> 
> _*4. Can I get married without a marriage license?*
> We can perform a ceremony without a marriage license, but it would not be a legal ceremony. So if you are looking to get legally married, then yes, you will need a marriage license. Otherwise, we can perform a ceremony just for fun, and the experience of having a Las Vegas ceremony._
> http://www.gracelandchapel.com/faq/


Sometimes true, especially if the point is remarrying with full knowledge of an unresolved impediment. But frankly, there are many ways around the lack of a marriage license to establish a valid marriage. As I keep repeating. It's not set in concrete no matter how many times you say that it is.


----------



## Guest

Patchouli said:


> Unfortunately while Jesus was crystal clear on this point most Churches these days ignore it because it is too harsh. Which is interesting because his disciples had the exact same reaction back when he first said it. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are still firm on it and I know in some denominations you can no longer hold a position of authority if you are divorced. Pentacostals and Southern Baptists held that for a long time, not sure if they still do.
> 
> Just as a historical tidbit the reason King Edward VIII had to abdicate as King of England back in 1936 was because he wanted to marry a divorced woman and as King he was also the head of the Church of England and you were not allowed to divorce and remarry so long as your spouse was alive under Church Law. So he had to step down from both since these days chopping the head off your spouse is passe'.


Thank you I understand now, but strict interpretation in Hebrew, (Greek is beyond me), opens up a bit of a difference especially sense Yashuas response to the Pharisee would have been in old Hebrew.

Anyway thanks again and back to the regularly scheduled back biting.


----------



## where I want to

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Does separation of church and state mean anything to anyone? The state has said gay people can marry legally. There are forms to be filled out... If someone's religious belief goes against handing out those forms they need to seek employment elsewhere.


And that will probably be the result. But the idea of seperation of church and state is to protect religion from government interference as much as it is to protect people from having the government inflict someone else's religion on them.

Gay marriage is the only case I know of where the government is attempting to enforce an almost universally banned idea on people, religious or not. It is taking a religious idea that, of almost uniform applicability, was adopted into civil code and replace it with a strictly secular vision of what it should be. It's not like antimiscregenanation laws, which were almost unknown outside limited areas in the US. This is ignoring precedents wholesale.

That there is resistance to this should come as no surprise, especially as it's dismissing of almost univeral tradition opens questions about where the idea will lead.


----------



## Patchouli

dlmcafee said:


> Thank you I understand now, but strict interpretation in Hebrew, (Greek is beyond me), opens up a bit of a difference especially sense Yashuas response to the Pharisee would have been in old Hebrew.
> 
> Anyway thanks again and back to the regularly scheduled back biting.


Well since we don't have access to any of the Aramaic gospels (and I have no doubt at least Matthew and John were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic) we are kind of stuck with the Greek. I don't see any way the original language would spin it differently though. Jesus was just making the rules stricter which he did about a lot of things. In most places where the interpretations of the Law had become more lax he tightened them back up.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Gay marriage is the only case I know of where the government is attempting to enforce an almost universally banned idea on people of religion.


No one is forcing you to do anything at all.


----------



## where I want to

Patchouli said:


> Once again your response has zero to do with my post so I think I shall just ignore your posts in future. I can't even come up with a response to that it is so far out there. Just keep on arguing with yourself, you seem to be enjoying it. :goodjob:


Of course it does. But I will miss you. Even though you refuse to allow other opinions as valid, you at least did it with civility, more or less.
All I said was that it was a silly, spiteful image that has no validity. Can't see how that is irrelevant to your opinion that it reflected her (and my) hypocrisy because you and the image creator assigned a belief to her despite have no idea what her beliefs are in the first place.


----------



## farmrbrown

where I want to said:


> So you think that, having committed one crime, that it means every other crime should now be allowed? So, if she thinks that divorce is acceptable, she should no longer treat marriage as having any rules?



No, but God's views on marriage are pretty clear.




dlmcafee said:


> Not being of the Christian faith myself, does your interpretation stand true to all or at best most Christian denominations? I understand your premise, so not meant to be argumentative.


No, I doubt it.
Having been raised Southern Baptist, eating pork is considered downright Christian, lol.
The fact that Jesus, His cousin John, the 12 apostles, Paul and most of the Christian church for the first few centuries were all Jewish and knew there was really no "new law" established, just the fulfillment of the perfect sacrifice that was required for sin.
No further sacrifice is now needed, but the Law remains what it is.





Patchouli said:


> Wow. Seriously? *Sanctity of marriage*, did you miss that part? If you are going to try and make some argument that it is against your Christian, biblical beliefs to allow gay marriage then you had best be sticking to the letter of the biblical law yourself. Otherwise you are a hypocrite. The Bible is pretty clear that you need to look to your own life first before you start judging your brother.
> 
> I don't have any personal feelings on the woman herself at all. I don't have much liking for hypocrites though. And unless she is a three time widow I think a hypocrite is exactly what she must be.



That was my only point.
While none of us know the woman's heart or exactly when she acquired her faith. Even so, we are to be careful in treating others and judging them.
I can empathize with the clerk's dilemma, but I think her die is cast.



Yvonne's hubby said:


> Does separation of church and state mean anything to anyone? The state has said gay people can marry legally. There are forms to be filled out... If someone's religious belief goes against handing out those forms they need to seek employment elsewhere.


Unfortunately I agree.
When the gov't goes against your beliefs, it's time to leave the gov't's employment. You can't serve two Masters.


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> Unfortunately I agree.
> When the gov't goes against your beliefs, it's time to leave the gov't's employment. You can't serve two Masters.


I suspect that's how this dispute will end. The clerk will leave and be replaced with someone who is willing to issue licenses in accordance with the law.


----------



## Farmerga

This woman needs to issue licenses, in accordance with the law, or, she needs to resign. What I don't like and I believe it a gross violation of freedom (no matter if it is against the "law" or not) is forcing a private business to supply a good or service to others. You see, equal protection, in government, is one thing, forced servitude is quite another.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> This woman needs to issue licenses, in accordance with the law, or, she needs to resign. What I don't like and I believe it a gross violation of freedom (no matter if it is against the "law" or not) is forcing a private business to supply a good or service to others. You see, equal protection, in government, is one thing, forced servitude is quite another.


have you ever been denied service because of your religion? or color of your skin? how about because your ancestors came from the "wrong" country?


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> have you ever been denied service because of your religion? or color of your skin? how about because your ancestors came from the &quot;wrong&quot; country?


 Sure have!! Religion. Know what I did? I went to his competition and supported HIS bottom line. Told all of my friends as well. He suffered financially for that, but, I didn't and wouldn't get the government involved. I just don't get why anyone would want to financially support someone who would discriminate against them. The government, through its nondiscrimination laws, hides it from us making us uninformed consumers.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> Sure have!! Religion. Know what I did? I went to his competition and supported HIS bottom line. Told all of my friends as well. He suffered financially for that, but, I didn't and wouldn't get the government involved. I just don't get why anyone would want to financially support someone who would discriminate against them. The government, through its nondiscrimination laws, hides it from us making us uninformed consumers.


Ok, you went elsewhere and was able to get what you wanted. Imagine if every store you went into refused to serve you? It wasnt so very long ago that a good many of our fellow citizens faced that situation every day. There was a reason these laws became necessary. Its called bigotry.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok, you went elsewhere and was able to get what you wanted. Imagine if every store you went into refused to serve you? It wasnt so very long ago that a good many of our fellow citizens faced that situation every day. There was a reason these laws became necessary. Its called bigotry.


 And in the 21st century, they are no longer needed. Most stores wouldn't discriminate for any superficial reason. The few, that would, would be shunned by many, hurting their bottom line. I believe that people have the right to be stupid, bigoted, sort sighted, silly, etc. We should have the ability to see these people for who and what they are and avoid them. With the laws on the books, that is difficult.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> And in the 21st century, they are no longer needed. Most stores wouldn't discriminate for any superficial reason. The few, that would, would be shunned by many, hurting their bottom line. I believe that people have the right to be stupid, bigoted, sort sighted, silly, etc. We should have the ability to see these people for who and what they are and avoid them. With the laws on the books, that is difficult.


Maybe, maybe not. There is at least one bakery and one county court clerk who would not, as evidenced by the subject of this and another thread. There also seems to be those posting here on this board that support those positions. While it is possible that these are the only two bigots left in our country, somehow I doubt that.


----------



## Farmerga

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Maybe, maybe not. There is at least one bakery who would not, as evidenced by the subject of this thread. There also seems to be those posting here on this board that support that bakers position. While it is possible that these are the only bigots left in our country, but somehow I doubt that.


 
They are few and there would be a sprinkling of discriminatory businesses, if the law were modified. Most people realize that, in our current culture, it would be financial suicide to discriminate, in most cases. If you will notice, there are many who do not support the position of the baker. Personally, I don't agree with him, but, I still think he should have the right to refuse service, to whomever, for whatever reason.


----------



## Evons hubby

Farmerga said:


> They are few and there would be a sprinkling of discriminatory businesses, if the law were modified. Most people realize that, in our current culture, it would be financial suicide to discriminate, in most cases. If you will notice, there are many who do not support the position of the baker. Personally, I don't agree with him, but, I still think he should have the right to refuse service, to whomever, for whatever reason.


And you are entitled to your opinion. That being said I would recommend not putting it into practice if you are a business owner. It is illegal, and those laws are being enforced. There are plenty of valid reasons to refuse service to some customers, religion, race, creed, color, and sexual preference are not among them.


----------



## Guest

Farmerga said:


> They are few and there would be a sprinkling of discriminatory businesses, if the law were modified. Most people realize that, in our current culture, it would be financial suicide to discriminate, in most cases. If you will notice, there are many who do not support the position of the baker. Personally, I don't agree with him, but, I still think he should have the right to refuse service, to whomever, for whatever reason.


That is pretty a volunteerism and a free market way of running things and I agree, but we are not free, we live in a society of privileges dealt out by a government. Rights originally written went away shortly after the ink dried and accelerated to a point of obscurity.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Clerk loses appeal, ordered to issue licenses, yet she still refuses to follow the law, and just do her job:



> MOREHEAD, Ky. (AP) &#8212; A Kentucky clerk's office on Thursday again refused to issue a marriage license to a gay couple, in defiance of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage across the country two months ago. Then she temporarily shut her office.
> 
> Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has refused to issue any marriage licenses, citing her Christian faith and constitutional right to religious freedom, since the landmark decision in June.





> The action Thursday came just a day after a federal appeals court upheld a ruling ordering the clerk in rural Rowan County to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
> 
> U.S. District Judge David Bunning had already ordered Davis to issue marriage licenses two weeks ago. He later delayed that ruling until Aug. 31 or until the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling. The appeals court did so on Wednesday, denying Davis' appeal.


http://www.usnews.com/news/us/artic...couple-cheers-gay-marriage-ruling-in-kentucky


----------



## arabian knight

Good for her hope she still keeps this up it is a wonderful thing to defy something you dislike and goes against your believes. Keep It Up.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> Good for her hope she still keeps this up it is a wonderful thing to defy something you dislike and goes against your believes. Keep It Up.


If she keeps it up much longer she will be unemployed.


----------



## Irish Pixie

Bearfootfarm said:


> If she keeps it up much longer she will be unemployed.


Or hold her in contempt of court and either make her pay fines or face jail time.


----------



## GREEN_ALIEN

Bearfootfarm said:


> If she keeps it up much longer she will be unemployed.


 :goodjob:



Irish Pixie said:


> Or hold her in contempt of court and either make her pay fines or face jail time.


 :goodjob:

I really hope that she faces all three items, and soon.

Sure, she does indeed have federally protected religious freedom. What she fails to realize is that we all have the right to the separation of church and state. Her religious freedom cannot impact others right to be free of religion when conducting government business.

Is it just me... or is there a large faction of the population who want to enforce one of their rights to deny an equal right to others?

IMHO, this woman is committing a hate crime and by the state not releasing her from her duties, they are sponsoring a hate crime.

Ted


----------



## mmoetc

A question came to mind earlier. This woman has repeatedly, of late closed this office to the public. There are other employees in this office who could, seemingly, issue liscences in her stead. If these other employees have no objection to issuing such liscences is this woman violating their rights by not allowing them to do so to comply with her beliefs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

mmoetc said:


> A question came to mind earlier. This woman has repeatedly, of late closed this office to the public. There are other employees in this office who could, seemingly, issue liscences in her stead. If these other employees have no objection to issuing such liscences is this woman violating their rights by not allowing them to do so to comply with her beliefs.


In some small counties there may only be one person authorized to issue the license.

Here in NC, when the Supreme Court ruling was made public, it was announced that clerks would be allowed to refuse to issue a license for a same sex marriage, but the office would have to provide someone else to do it, and the clerk who refused wouldn't be allowed to issue any licenses to anyone for 6 months.


----------



## Patchouli

mmoetc said:


> A question came to mind earlier. This woman has repeatedly, of late closed this office to the public. There are other employees in this office who could, seemingly, issue liscences in her stead. If these other employees have no objection to issuing such liscences is this woman violating their rights by not allowing them to do so to comply with her beliefs.


From what I read she hired her family members as staff. Her mother held the office before her. So nepotism is alive and well there too.


----------



## Evons hubby

Patchouli said:


> From what I read she hired her family members as staff. Her mother held the office before her. So nepotism is alive and well there too.


I am thinking this county is in eastern ky where you have little choice but to hire kinfolk.... Coz there ain't nobody else! :hrm:


----------



## wr

arabian knight said:


> Good for her hope she still keeps this up it is a wonderful thing to defy something you dislike and goes against your believes. Keep It Up.


How far are you prepared to extend that thinking? If she doesn't like the idea of couples under 25 marrying, is it still okay? Perhaps she figures a couple isn't Christian enough for her liking. Would it be equally okay if she denied them the right to marry? 

If she truly felt that her job conflicted with her faith, it seems to me that a strong statement would be tendering her resignation but wanting to keep her job and sit in judgement of others seems conflicting to me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

wr said:


> How far are you prepared to extend that thinking? If she doesn't like the idea of couples under 25 marrying, is it still okay? Perhaps she figures a couple isn't Christian enough for her liking. Would it be equally okay if she denied them the right to marry?
> 
> If she truly felt that her job conflicted with her faith, it seems to me that a strong statement would be tendering her resignation but wanting to keep her job and sit in judgement of others seems conflicting to me.


Exactly.
She complains about her rights being violated, but she is violating the rights of many others herself. 

She needs to resign if she can't perform her job.


----------



## Belfrybat

I read earlier that she is now appealing to the Supreme Court. Good luck with that one.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...3dbdb2-4dc2-11e5-80c2-106ea7fb80d4_story.html


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Belfrybat said:


> I read earlier that she is now appealing to the Supreme Court. Good luck with that one.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...3dbdb2-4dc2-11e5-80c2-106ea7fb80d4_story.html


I don't foresee them taking the case when it's clear she has no grounds for further appeals

If she doesn't start issuing licenses on Monday, she will be in contempt


----------



## farmrbrown

Interesting development if she _is _charged with contempt. It may not go the way most people would think.....

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-21

A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as&#8212;
(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.



Any person, corporation or association willfully disobeying any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States or any court of the District of Columbia, by doing any act or thing therein, or thereby forbidden, if the act or thing so done be of such character as to constitute also a criminal offense under any statute of the United States or under the laws of any State in which the act was committed, shall be prosecuted for such contempt as provided in section 3691 of this title and shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment, or both.
Such fine shall be paid to the United States or to the complainant or other party injured by the act constituting the contempt, or may, where more than one is so damaged, be divided or apportioned among them as the court may direct, but in no case shall the fine to be paid to the United States exceed, in case the accused is a natural person, the sum of $1,000, nor shall such imprisonment exceed the term of six months.
This section shall not be construed to relate to contempts committed in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, nor to contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States, but the same, and all other cases of contempt not specifically embraced in this section may be punished in conformity to the prevailing usages at law.
For purposes of this section, the term &#8220;State&#8221; includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

*********************

Whenever a contempt charged shall consist in willful disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States by doing or omitting any act or thing in violation thereof, and the act or thing done or omitted also constitutes a criminal offense under any Act of Congress, or under the laws of any state in which it was done or omitted, the accused, upon demand therefor, shall be entitled to trial by a jury, which shall conform as near as may be to the practice in other criminal cases.
This section shall not apply to contempts committed in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, nor to contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States.


----------



## Patchouli

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am thinking this county is in eastern ky where you have little choice but to hire kinfolk.... Coz there ain't nobody else! :hrm:


I didn't think about that, you may be right.


----------



## Patchouli

wr said:


> How far are you prepared to extend that thinking? If she doesn't like the idea of couples under 25 marrying, is it still okay? Perhaps she figures a couple isn't Christian enough for her liking. Would it be equally okay if she denied them the right to marry?
> 
> If she truly felt that her job conflicted with her faith, it seems to me that a strong statement would be tendering her resignation but wanting to keep her job and sit in judgement of others seems conflicting to me.



I can guarantee if she stopped him from getting his driver's license renewed because of some religious ideal he would be singing a very different tune.


----------



## farmrbrown

Patchouli said:


> I can guarantee if she stopped him from getting his driver's license renewed because of some religious ideal he would be singing a very different tune.


You mean like this Florida case?

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2006/801-1000/06-858_JurisAns.pdf


Then there is SC and TX........

http://bluenationreview.com/south-carolina-dmv-denies-woman-license-update-due-sex-marriage/


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Interesting development if she _is _charged with contempt. *It may not go the way most people would think.*....
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-21


Was there a point hidden in there somewhere in all that rambling?
She will be guilty of a "criminal offense" which is grounds for impeachment

What do "most people think"?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by Patchouli View Post
> I can guarantee if she stopped him from getting his driver's license renewed because of some *religious* ideal he would be singing a very different tune.





farmrbrown said:


> You mean like this Florida case?
> 
> http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2006/801-1000/06-858_JurisAns.pdf
> 
> 
> Then there is SC and TX........
> 
> http://bluenationreview.com/south-carolina-dmv-denies-woman-license-update-due-sex-marriage/


Neither of those are related to the religious beliefs *of the clerks*.
One has nothing to do with religion at all


----------



## mmoetc

Double post.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> You mean like this Florida case?
> 
> http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2006/801-1000/06-858_JurisAns.pdf
> 
> 
> Then there is SC and TX........
> 
> http://bluenationreview.com/south-carolina-dmv-denies-woman-license-update-due-sex-marriage/


As someone who values religous freedom so much why are you not lobbying for this woman's rights? Or are some religions rights more important than others? Of course the difference here is that the state of Florida is denying someone's established religous practices and the other only requires someone to do their job which has no religous component.

As to the second case. It occurred prior to the SC decision that brought about the current controversy. The courts decision would be different today and allow the name change. That is, in part, what the cases brought before the SC sought to, and did resolve.


----------



## poppy

I fail to see the problem. She is sticking to her beliefs and her beliefs have been overruled by government. She's not the first to defy a court. Obama just said he will defy a court ruling regarding a new EPA rule and implement the rule anyway. How many of you would agree Obama should be thrown out of office for it or are you of the opinion religious views need to be quashed but not political views? Let it play out. If she sincere in her beliefs enough that she is willing to lose her job, bravo for her. Apparently gays don't own cars so they can drive to another county to get a marriage license. Everyone knows they just applied there to push a point and stir up trouble.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Everyone knows they just applied there to push a point and stir up trouble.


How does "everyone" know that?
Do you know where they live?


----------



## GREEN_ALIEN

poppy said:


> I fail to see the problem. She is sticking to her beliefs and her beliefs have been overruled by government. She's not the first to defy a court. Obama just said he will defy a court ruling regarding a new EPA rule and implement the rule anyway. How many of you would agree Obama should be thrown out of office for it or are you of the opinion religious views need to be quashed but not political views?


Poppy, you are comparing apples to avocados here... 

First, her beliefs CANNOT be part of her government job. The end, period. That dog don't hunt.

There is no '*opinion*' that religious view need to be quashed, rather, there is the *FACT* that we enjoy separation of church and state in this county. She simply cannot bring a faith based argument to work.

How does obama's politics have anything to do with religion? He is the prez, such as it is, and enjoys some latitude within the legal process. We will see what he does and if he breaks the law, I am sure someone will have something to say.



poppy said:


> Let it play out. If she sincere in her beliefs enough that she is willing to lose her job, bravo for her. Apparently gays don't own cars so they can drive to another county to get a marriage license. Everyone knows they just applied there to push a point and stir up trouble.


It is completely irrelevant why they wish to apply in this county... they have the now protected *RIGHT* to do so. She does not have the *RIGHT* to bring her religious views into that particular workplace.

It is also completely ridiculous that someone should be expected to drive to another county to use a government service clearly and legally provided in ones own county.

You really must read what you type... apply your words to other things that might affect your life. Maybe you just want to quash the *RIGHTS* of others as it affects your personal belief?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Charges filed for against Kim Davis for "official misconduct":

http://www.towleroad.com/2015/08/kim-davis-misconduct/



> The Rowan County Attorneyâs Office has filed a charge of official misconduct against clerk Kim Davis for her repeated refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples despite a federal order.
> 
> The Morehead News reports County Attorney Cecil Watkins said the Rowan County government and his office had no other action against Davis.
> 
> âNo authority exists for her removal or suspension from the office by Rowan County government,â said Watkins. âKentucky State Government is the only entity that can move to have Kim Davis removed as Rowan County Clerk.â
> 
> The charge has been referred to the Attorney Generalâs Office. The county attorneyâs office is prohibited from prosecuting Davis because they are involved in current litigation with Davis.
> 
> The federal judgeâs stay on his order expires on Monday. Davis has asked the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay on the order while she continues her appeal.


http://www.lrc.ky.gov/Statutes/statute.aspx?id=19888



> 522.020 Official misconduct in the first degree.
> (1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent
> to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or *to deprive another person
> of a benefit*, he knowingly:
> (a) Commits an act relating to his office which constitutes an *unauthorized
> exercise of his official functions*; or
> (b) *Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law* or clearly inherent
> in the nature of his office; or
> (c) *Violates any statute or lawfully adopted rule or regulation relating to his
> office. *
> (2) Official misconduct in the first degree is a Class A misdemeanor.
> Effective: January 1, 1975
> History: Created 1974 Ky. Acts ch. 406, sec. 187, effective January 1, 1975.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Was there a point hidden in there somewhere in all that rambling?
> She will be guilty of a "criminal offense" which is grounds for impeachment
> 
> What do "most people think"?




I don't know why you accuse me of "rambling" when I post statutes, usually in their full context.
If you want to criticize the rambling, please direct it towards the legislatures. As for me not editing and posting one or two lines of the laws, I know from experience how deceiving that can be and will not do that.

The "point" as you asked, was that a contempt charge under federal law, and this was a federal district court that she is refusing to obey, has two components, direct contempt and indirect contempt.
She at this time can only be charged with indirect contempt, unless she mouths off to the judge in his courtroom.
That means she's entitled to a jury trial if she is charged with this contempt and not automatically jailed and fined without a trial...........which is what I surmise is "what most people think."

*I* didn't know all that before I looked it up, but then again, I don't know everything instantly upon reading a story.




Bearfootfarm said:


> Neither of those are related to the religious beliefs *of the clerks*.
> One has nothing to do with religion at all



No they are not, you are once again correct.
But then again Patouli didn't exactly say that the religious views would have to be only those of the clerk's, or am I wrong?
I haven't reread the original quote to see if it's been edited, but that wasn't what I read last night.




Patchouli said:


> I can guarantee if she stopped him from getting his driver's license renewed* because of some religious ideal *he would be singing a very different tune.







mmoetc said:


> As someone who values religous freedom so much why are you not lobbying for this woman's rights? Or are some religions rights more important than others? Of course the difference here is that the state of Florida is denying someone's established religous practices and the other only requires someone to do their job which has no religous component.
> 
> As to the second case. It occurred prior to the SC decision that brought about the current controversy. The courts decision would be different today and allow the name change. That is, in part, what the cases brought before the SC sought to, and did resolve.


The examples were to show that the religious argument can go both ways. If one is to dismiss all religious beliefs from the law, then there may come a time when those laws have unforeseen and seemingly unfair consequences.
Those that want to defend the laws that man writes, need to know of man's fallibility.

Why do I not defend this woman?
I explained in another thread.
While I agree with her belief that she should not authorize or give license to a same sex marriage, the government of the United States has sanctioned it now. 
Therefore as the Word says, we are to separate ourselves from the world when this happens.
If this means finding another job, the Lord will provide. She can still not be forced to do what she will not do, and let those who wish to do it, do what they wish. 
The walk of faith is a difficult one. You will be called a coward, a bigot, a fool, a rebel, all sorts of names.
Let them talk, meanwhile, walk the walk.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> *I don't know why you accuse me of "rambling" when I post statutes, usually in their full context.*
> If you want to criticize the rambling, please direct it towards the legislatures. As for me not editing and posting one or two lines of the laws, I know from experience how deceiving that can be and will not do that.
> 
> The "point" as you asked, was that a contempt charge under federal law, and this was a federal district court that she is refusing to obey, has two components, direct contempt and indirect contempt.
> She at this time can only be charged with indirect contempt, unless she mouths off to the judge in his courtroom.
> That means she's entitled to a jury trial if she is charged with this contempt and not automatically jailed and fined without a trial...........which is *what I surmise is "what most people think."*
> 
> *I* didn't know all that before I looked it up, but then again, I don't know everything instantly upon reading a story.
> 
> 
> 
> But then again Patouli didn't exactly say that *the religious views would have to be only those of the clerk's*, or am I wrong?
> I haven't reread the original quote to see if it's been edited, but that wasn't what I read last night.


It's "rambling" because there is no point in posting an entire statute when a link serves the same purpose. 

It had little to do with what you were trying to (but never really did) say, and just tends to fill the pages without saying much at all

There's only one way I can see to interpret Patchouli's statement, and it would have to mean the clerk's "religious ideal" since they are the only that can *stop* the process, and it's the only interpretation that fits the context:


> Originally Posted by Patchouli View Post
> I can guarantee if she *stopped* him from getting his driver's license renewed *because of some religious ideal* he would be singing a very different tune.


The driver's license incident wasn't about "religion" 
It was about the face being covered, which isn't allowed for anyone regardless of religion.

If Davis were to be charged with contempt, it's likely just being under indictment would be grounds to start impeachment proceedings, although it won't much matter now that there are other criminal charges already filed

Also, she's only entitled to a jury trial if the act of "contempt" *also breaks another law:*



> Whenever a contempt charged shall consist in willful disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States by doing or omitting any act or thing in violation thereof, *and the act or thing done or omitted also constitutes a criminal offense under any Act of Congress, or under the laws of any state in which it was done or omitted, the accused, upon demand therefor, shall be entitled to trial by a jury*, which shall conform as near as may be to the practice in other criminal cases.


The contempt charge alone requires no trial, since guilt is self evident


----------



## Trixie

Personally, I don't care who marries what or how many - as long as they don't hurt others by doing so.

I don't think the idea of homosexual marriage is going to be the downfall of heterosexual marriage - I think we heterosexuals have done enough damage to that already.

We have so many things in this country that need our attention, efforts, energy and prayers. This might be one of those 'Choose your battles' type thing.


----------



## GREEN_ALIEN

Great post, Trixie.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's "rambling" because there is no point in posting an entire statute when a link serves the same purpose.
> 
> It had little to do with what you were trying to (but never really did) say, and just tends to fill the pages without saying much at all


Uh..yeah. And all that "rambling" wouldn't have brought out the point at the end of this post, which I will correct in a moment for you. If you can "bear" a few more words, that is.




Bearfootfarm said:


> *There's only one way I can see to interpret Patchouli's statement,* and it would have to mean the clerk's "religious ideal" since they are the only that can *stop* the process, and it's the only interpretation that fits the context:
> 
> 
> The driver's license incident wasn't about "religion"
> It was about the face being covered, which isn't allowed for anyone regardless of religion.




Yes, I'm keenly aware that in your opinion, your opinion is the only one that matters.
However there are a few other people on this planet, have a look around sometime.

And the woman in Florida's case made it perfectly clear that is was about her religion - Islam.
There may be other cultures that require face covering, but I am not aware if there are other religions that do.
It was HER religious ideals that STOPPED the process as the Supreme Court of Florida concurred.



Bearfootfarm said:


> If Davis were to be charged with contempt, it's likely just being under indictment would be grounds to start impeachment proceedings, although it won't much matter now that there are other criminal charges already filed
> 
> Also, she's only entitled to a jury trial if the act of "contempt" *also breaks another law:*
> 
> 
> 
> *The contempt charge alone requires no trial, since guilt is self evident*



Wrong again, I read what the federal law is talking about because I was curious about contempt charges and convictions.
That's a glaring and obvious problem with it, if you know anything about constitutional law.
Due process otherwise known as the 5th amendment.

*THAT'S* why she gets a jury trial under those circumstances, because of the difference between direct and indirect contempt charges. To do otherwise would violate the fifth amendment right to due process.
How else can you accuse, try, convict and sentence all in the same 5 minutes?
That was what the Founding Fathers were getting away from when they wrote the Constitution - law by prejudicial decree.

Now in STATE court, you would be correct, see the tenth amendment and older SCOTUS case law.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> *THAT'S why she gets a jury trial *under those circumstances, because of the difference between direct and indirect contempt charges. To do otherwise would violate the fifth amendment right to *due process*.
> How else can you accuse, try, convict and sentence all in the same 5 minutes?
> That was what the Founding Fathers were getting away from when they wrote the Constitution - law by prejudicial decree.


Your own source said the jury trial is only used if it breaks *another* law.

There's no logical reason for a jury trial only for the contempt charge, since the guilt is obvious. 

She's had her "due process" twice already when she was ordered to comply with the law



> And the woman in Florida's case made it perfectly clear that is was about her religion - Islam.


The driver's license case is still just a distraction, since no one of *any* religion is allowed to have their face covered when the picture is taken. It makes no difference what the Muslim women claimed was the reason. 

The *clerk's* actions were based on the face covering alone


----------



## RichNC

poppy said:


> Apparently gays don't own cars so they can drive to another county to get a marriage license. Everyone knows they just applied there to push a point and stir up trouble.


Why should they have to do that??


----------



## coolrunnin

poppy said:


> I fail to see the problem. She is sticking to her beliefs and her beliefs have been overruled by government. She's not the first to defy a court. Obama just said he will defy a court ruling regarding a new EPA rule and implement the rule anyway. How many of you would agree Obama should be thrown out of office for it or are you of the opinion religious views need to be quashed but not political views? Let it play out. If she sincere in her beliefs enough that she is willing to lose her job, bravo for her. Apparently gays don't own cars so they can drive to another county to get a marriage license. Everyone knows they just applied there to push a point and stir up trouble.


here you have to file in the county you live in.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Your own source said the jury trial is only used if it breaks *another* law.
> 
> There's no logical reason for a jury trial only for the contempt charge, since the guilt is obvious.
> 
> She's had her "due process" twice already when she was ordered to comply with the law
> 
> 
> The driver's license case is still just a distraction, since no one of *any* religion is allowed to have their face covered when the picture is taken. It makes no difference what the Muslim women claimed was the reason.
> 
> The *clerk's* actions were based on the face covering alone




The ignorance of the law, whether intentional or not, I'm not sure, is simply astounding.

Print, link, spell it out in big, bold letters, it never does any good because you are never wrong - never.:smack

Indirect and direct.
I gave you the definitions, gave you the federal statute, and apparently you read it.
You just flat, wear me out, man.
:smack
Yes Bearfoot, another act in some way must be involved, that's what we all said.
But your statement after that confirms how I knew "what most people think". I suspect others think the same way you do.



*She's had her "due process" twice already when she was ordered to comply with the law
*



If I thought you knew what due process was, or cared to learn, perhaps this would go further. But when someone thinks one man can be prosecutor, judge, jury and defense attorney and that not be a violation of what everyone knows constitutional law is, there isn't any amount of education that can improve an attitude like that.

See ya.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I gave you the definitions, gave you the federal statute, and apparently you read it.


Yes, and I quoted the portion that explained a *jury trial is only required if another law is broken.*
It was your source and your statute



> *If I thought you knew* what due process was, or cared to learn, perhaps this would go further. But when someone thinks one man can be prosecutor, judge, jury and defense attorney and that not be a violation of what everyone knows constitutional law is, there isn't any amount of education that can improve an attitude like that.


You mistakenly think it's somehow your place to "educate" people.


----------



## susieneddy

Interesting that she has already issued a marriage license to a gay couple and didn't know it

WATCH: Antigay Ky. Clerk Inadvertently Married This Queer Couple
The antigay clerk saw the trans man and his pansexual wife as 'just another straight couple' when she signed their marriage license in February, say Camryn and Alexis Colen. 

The Kentucky county clerk who just asked the Supreme Court for a special exemption so she wouldn&#8217;t have to sign the marriage licenses of same-sex couples, nonetheless signed off on the marriage of a trans man and pansexual woman in February, report several media outlets in Morehead, Ky. 


http://www.advocate.com/marriage-eq...ucky-clerk-inadvertently-married-queer-couple


----------



## Bearfootfarm

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2015/08/breaking-scotus-denies-kim-davis-final-appeal/



> In an event that surprised absolutely nobody who doesn&#8217;t believe in miracles (and, frankly, plenty who do), the SCOTUS has declined to let Kim Davis waste their time


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/su...ay-marriage-case/ar-AAdOuHk?ocid=ansmsnnews11



> MOREHEAD, Ky. (AP) &#8212; The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against the Kentucky county clerk who has refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, and the clerk will arrive at work Tuesday morning to face her moment of truth.
> 
> Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis will have to choose whether to issue marriage licenses, defying her Christian conviction, or continue to refuse them, defying a federal judge who could pummel her with fines or order that she be hauled off to jail.


----------



## Patchouli

farmrbrown said:


> You mean like this Florida case?
> 
> http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/briefs/2006/801-1000/06-858_JurisAns.pdf
> 
> 
> Then there is SC and TX........
> 
> http://bluenationreview.com/south-carolina-dmv-denies-woman-license-update-due-sex-marriage/


I can see needing a picture of her without the veil in the first one. I think the state's need trumps her religion. 

In the other 2 cases they need to quit being jerks and issue the licenses with the married names. That's just childish stupidity on the parts of the state and their clerks.


----------



## farmrbrown

Patchouli said:


> I can see needing a picture of her without the veil in the first one. I think the state's need trumps her religion.
> 
> In the other 2 cases they need to quit being jerks and issue the licenses with the married names. That's just childish stupidity on the parts of the state and their clerks.


While we might agree the last two cases are suspiciously motivated, they also have the law on their side.
Lots of legitimate people are turned away at DMV offices for incorrect or changed names and other paperwork inconsistencies, my mom was one of them.
They ask for death certificates, marriage licenses, proof of POA, SS cards, etc. in order to prevent identity theft and fraud.
Otherwise any old name you want to show them is good enough, right?
The law IS the law..........until it starts messing with people's lives.
Funny, how that works.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> While we might agree the last two cases are suspiciously motivated, they also have the law on their side.
> Lots of legitimate people are turned away at DMV offices for incorrect or changed names and other paperwork inconsistencies, my mom was one of them.
> They ask for death certificates, marriage licenses, proof of POA, SS cards, etc. in order to prevent identity theft and fraud.
> Otherwise any old name you want to show them is good enough, right?
> The law IS the law..........until it starts messing with people's lives.
> Funny, how that works.


They used to have the law on their side. Since the recent SC decision they no longer do. Just like any other married couple the name change can be accomplished with submitting a valid marriage certificate and any other paperwork the state requires. It's that whole equal application of the law thing that the SC decision centered around. The law is now on the side of equality. Finny how that works.


----------



## arabian knight

A county clerk in Kentucky who is continuing to deny marriage licenses to gay couples says she's doing so "under God's authority." Keep it up stand your High Ground a power Higher then one of this lands.
Ermold said: "We're not leaving until we have a license."
Davis responded: "Then you're going to have a long day."
Once again it is these that are just shoving it in the faces that are so stubborn to go somewhere else in your face Christians that will not happen not in the land of FREE Religion, not free from religion.


----------



## no really

susieneddy said:


> Interesting that she has already issued a marriage license to a gay couple and didn't know it
> 
> WATCH: Antigay Ky. Clerk Inadvertently Married This Queer Couple
> The antigay clerk saw the trans man and his pansexual wife as 'just another straight couple' when she signed their marriage license in February, say Camryn and Alexis Colen.
> 
> The Kentucky county clerk who just asked the Supreme Court for a special exemption so she wouldnât have to sign the marriage licenses of same-sex couples, nonetheless signed off on the marriage of a trans man and pansexual woman in February, report several media outlets in Morehead, Ky.
> 
> 
> http://www.advocate.com/marriage-eq...ucky-clerk-inadvertently-married-queer-couple



Well had to look up pansexual, never heard of the term.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> A county clerk in Kentucky who is continuing to deny marriage licenses to gay couples says she's doing so "under God's authority." Keep it up stand your High Ground a power Higher then one of this lands.
> Ermold said: "We're not leaving until we have a license."
> Davis responded: "Then you're going to have a long day."
> Once again it is these that are just shoving it in the faces that are so stubborn to go somewhere else in your face Christians that will not happen not in the land of FREE Religion, *not free from religion*.


You seem confused, since the Govt can not "establish" any particular religion.

Allowing a Govt official to make decisions based on her religion goes against that prohibition.

There's no reason why anyone should have to "go somewhere else" to get the same legal Govt services offered to others.

You cannot force your religion on others


----------



## wr

arabian knight said:


> A county clerk in Kentucky who is continuing to deny marriage licenses to gay couples says she's doing so "under God's authority." Keep it up stand your High Ground a power Higher then one of this lands.
> Ermold said: "We're not leaving until we have a license."
> Davis responded: "Then you're going to have a long day."
> Once again it is these that are just shoving it in the faces that are so stubborn to go somewhere else in your face Christians that will not happen not in the land of FREE Religion, not free from religion.


Is God's authority also telling her that she should receive payment for a job she's not performing? I'm sure there's something in the bible about stealing, even if it is from one's employer. 

How do you feel that someone being asked to issue a license for a perfectly legal ceremony is shoving your face in it?


----------



## Tiempo

> ....to push a point and stir up trouble.


Sounds like exactly what the clerk is doing.


----------



## Belfrybat

She's now defying the Supreme Court which *she *appealed to. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/01/us-usa-gaymarriage-kentucky-idUSKCN0R13S220150901
If this was a person in a private firm, I'd have no problem with what she is doing. But she is an elected official in a public position. The Christian loving thing for her to do is to quit her job so that the county can get on with serving the people of that county. To suggest that some people should have to drive an hour away to get a public service their taxes are paying for is ludicrous.


----------



## wr

Belfrybat said:


> She's now defying the Supreme Court which *she *appealed to. http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/01/us-usa-gaymarriage-kentucky-idUSKCN0R13S220150901
> If this was a person in a private firm, I'd have no problem with what she is doing. But she is an elected official in a public position. The Christian loving thing for her to do is to quit her job so that the county can get on with serving the people of that county. To suggest that some people should have to drive an hour away to get a public service their taxes are paying for is ludicrous.


As a business owner, I would have a problem with her refusing to do her job because not only would I feel she's stealing from me by way of unearned wages, she'd be costing me business which in turn may put me out of business.


----------



## where I want to

Pooh- a tempest in the liberal teapot. What will happen is that it will become such a mess that the State or county will be forced to find away around her for financial reasons.


----------



## Patchouli

farmrbrown said:


> While we might agree the last two cases are suspiciously motivated, they also have the law on their side.
> Lots of legitimate people are turned away at DMV offices for incorrect or changed names and other paperwork inconsistencies, my mom was one of them.
> They ask for death certificates, marriage licenses, proof of POA, SS cards, etc. in order to prevent identity theft and fraud.
> Otherwise any old name you want to show them is good enough, right?
> The law IS the law..........until it starts messing with people's lives.
> Funny, how that works.


Yeah but that's the thing they had all of the appropriate legal paperwork. SS card with new legal name, marriage certificate, etc. And the DMV still refused to put it on the driver's license.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

District Judge David Bunning has ordered Davis and her six deputy clerks to appear at 11 a.m. on Thursday at the federal court in Ashland.


----------



## InTownForNow

I for one think its refreshing to see someone not backing down from their beliefs in the face of adversity for once. Things will get difficult for her, but she has conviction and that seems in awful short supply these days.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

InTownForNow said:


> I for one think its refreshing to see someone not backing down from their beliefs in the face of adversity for once. Things will get difficult for her, but *she has conviction* and that seems in awful short supply these days.


It's fine for her to have beliefs.

It's not fine to refuse to do her job, and force her beliefs on others.

If she wants to protest, she should resign

Come Thursday, she may have more "convictions"


----------



## Lisa in WA

InTownForNow said:


> I for one think its refreshing to see someone not backing down from their beliefs in the face of adversity for once. Things will get difficult for her, but she has conviction and that seems in awful short supply these days.


Would you think it refreshing if the clerk were a Muslim and trying to enforce one of her beliefs on Christians?


----------



## InTownForNow

basketti said:


> Would you think it refreshing if the clerk were a Muslim and trying to enforce one of her beliefs on Christians?


Well as i see it shes not trying to make them christians. Shes refusing to follow a law that is in direct opposition to a biblical new covenant teaching. As christians we believe God's law trumps mans law even when we get in trouble for it legally. Just because its a law doesnt mean its right.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

InTownForNow said:


> Well as i see it shes not trying to make them christians. Shes refusing to follow a law that is in direct opposition to a biblical new covenant teaching. As christians *we believe* God's law trumps mans law even when we get in trouble for it legally. *Just because its a law doesnt mean its right.*


She's trying to force them to abide by the rules of a religion they don't follow.

Just because it's your belief doesn't mean it's "right" for everyone.

If she feels that strongly, she can resign her job, since she's not doing it anyway

The way she's doing things are costing the taxpayers a lot of money all because of her selfishness


----------



## Lisa in WA

InTownForNow said:


> Well as i see it shes not trying to make them christians. Shes refusing to follow a law that is in direct opposition to a biblical new covenant teaching. As christians we believe God's law trumps mans law even when we get in trouble for it legally. Just because its a law doesnt mean its right.


I didn't say the Muslim was trying to make you a Muslim either. Just trying to make you do something, or keep you from doing something legal, but not in keeping with her Muslim views.
Because if Christians get to use their governmental office powers to enforce their views of what is right, so do Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Mormons, etc. 

And I guess Satanists too.


----------



## Declan

Fennick said:


> If Davis refused to perform her duties on June 26th then she should have been summarily fired from her job on June 27th, booted to the curb and replaced by somebody who'd do the job they're paid to do. All that other stuff with injunctions and appeals is just a lot of namby-pamby nonsense. What a bunch of whoosies.


She is an elected official. She cannot just be fired.


----------



## craftychick

I personally have a hard time believing this is just about her moral Christian compass. She may have a better chance of support if she herself weren't a three times divorced woman. If I remember correctly, there are also passages in both the Old & New Testament about divorce & the parameters are very narrow.
Said slightly tongue in cheek but with her own marital history, it sounds like she follows the marriage must be between one woman and one man; then a different man and then another different man and one more time-another man. :happy:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles...lerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times


----------



## Lisa in WA

Declan said:


> She is an elected official. She cannot just be fired.


Nope, but she can have the snot fined out of her and/or be plopped in jail.


----------



## Declan

craftychick said:


> I personally have a hard time believing this is just about her moral Christian compass. She may have a better chance of support if she herself weren't a three times divorced woman. If I remember correctly, there are also passages in both the Old & New Testament about divorce & the parameters are very narrow.
> Said slightly tongue in cheek but with her own marital history, it sounds like she follows the marriage must be between one woman and one man; then a different man and then another different man and one more time-another man. :happy:


Nobody follows the Bible to the T because the Bible itself seems confusing. I would support her if she just refused it for herself. Since she is refusing to let any employees of the office issue the licenses either, she has moved beyond just honoring a personal belief and has crowned herself emperor.


----------



## Nevada

Declan said:


> She is an elected official. She cannot just be fired.


Probably can't simply be fired, but there must be a process to remove her from office for misconduct.

*****
_522.020 Official misconduct in the first degree.
(1) A public servant is guilty of official misconduct in the first degree when, with intent to obtain or confer a benefit or to injure another person or to deprive another person of a benefit, he knowingly: 
(b) *Refrains from performing a duty imposed upon him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office*_
*****

I think there is no disputing that she is engaging in misconduct for refusing to issue marriage licenses.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> They used to have the law on their side. Since the recent SC decision they no longer do. Just like any other married couple the name change can be accomplished with submitting a valid marriage certificate and any other paperwork the state requires. It's that whole equal application of the law thing that the SC decision centered around. The law is now on the side of equality. Finny how that works.





Patchouli said:


> Yeah but that's the thing they had all of the appropriate legal paperwork. SS card with new legal name, marriage certificate, etc. And the DMV still refused to put it on the driver's license.


Nope, better read it again. It was the state law on birth certificates that got them. Two women or two men are not allowed. You also can't arbitrarily change the gender that you were born under on a B/C without legal papers. The SCOTUS ruled on gay marriage, not state birth certificates. I guess we have more important cases to look forward to in our court system now.


Why? Because she lives in Texas and has two mothers.
Lone Star Q reported, &#8220;Turns out the Texas Department of Public Safety won&#8217;t honor name changes obtained through same-sex marriages in other states, based on the state&#8217;s anti-gay marriage amendment.&#8221; They continued, &#8220;Now, it appears the DPS also won&#8217;t allow the children of same-sex couples to take a driver&#8217;s test if both of their parents names are listed on their birth certificate. It doesn&#8217;t even matter if one of their parents is the mayor of Houston.&#8221;
It was only after she raised a ruckus on Twitter that Mayor Parker was able to help her daughter obtain a driver&#8217;s license. Other LGBT Texans (and their families) obviously won&#8217;t fare as well without Parker&#8217;s recognition and clout.
Where does that leave everyone else fighting red state DMV&#8217;s for legal identification? At the moment, it seems, they&#8217;re all in limbo.


Read more: http://bluenationreview.com/south-c...icense-update-due-sex-marriage/#ixzz3kXIvDI3T




As I said before, when people pin you to the ground and shove the law in your face, they are happy to do it. That's why I read the comments below these stories to get a feel for what's really going on. For as many that say they just want justice and fairness there are an equal number that are out to hurt others whenever and however they can. If they can use a "legal" method to do it, so much the better.
When that shoe gets worn on the other foot, it's, "How dare they!"
You reap what you sow.

C'est la vie.


----------



## greg273

If her religious beliefs are so strong that cannot perform the duties of her job, then she should resign.


----------



## Nevada

basketti said:


> Nope, but she can have the snot fined out of her and/or be plopped in jail.


I don't think it will come to that. Her lawyer has offered the county a way out; just change the marriage license so it doesn't display her name. In other words, the county authorizes the marriage -- not the clerk. I'm OK with that.

But this won't change her responsibility to the court. I think there is little doubt that on Thursday the judge will order the clerk to issue licenses. If she can convince the county to allow the change to the license then fine, otherwise she will find herself being required to endorse the licenses. She'll be in contempt of court if she refuses.

Her only alternative will be to step down as clerk, admitting that she can't perform the duties of her office under current law.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Declan said:


> She is an elected official. She cannot just be fired.


She can be impeached for misconduct or criminal acts


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Nope, better read it again. It was the state law on birth certificates that got them. Two women or two men are not allowed. You also can't arbitrarily change the gender that you were born under on a B/C without legal papers. The SCOTUS ruled on gay marriage, not state birth certificates. I guess we have more important cases to look forward to in our court system now.
> 
> 
> Why? Because she lives in Texas and has two mothers.
> Lone Star Q reported, &#8220;Turns out the Texas Department of Public Safety won&#8217;t honor name changes obtained through same-sex marriages in other states, based on the state&#8217;s anti-gay marriage amendment.&#8221; They continued, &#8220;Now, it appears the DPS also won&#8217;t allow the children of same-sex couples to take a driver&#8217;s test if both of their parents names are listed on their birth certificate. It doesn&#8217;t even matter if one of their parents is the mayor of Houston.&#8221;
> It was only after she raised a ruckus on Twitter that Mayor Parker was able to help her daughter obtain a driver&#8217;s license. Other LGBT Texans (and their families) obviously won&#8217;t fare as well without Parker&#8217;s recognition and clout.
> Where does that leave everyone else fighting red state DMV&#8217;s for legal identification? At the moment, it seems, they&#8217;re all in limbo.
> 
> 
> Read more: http://bluenationreview.com/south-c...icense-update-due-sex-marriage/#ixzz3kXIvDI3T
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, when people pin you to the ground and shove the law in your face, they are happy to do it. That's why I read the comments below these stories to get a feel for what's really going on. For as many that say they just want justice and fairness there are an equal number that are out to hurt others whenever and however they can. If they can use a "legal" method to do it, so much the better.
> When that shoe gets worn on the other foot, it's, "How dare they!"
> You reap what you sow.
> 
> C'est la vie.


And you should maybe use those reading and comprehension skills you take such pride in and read my post again. I spoke about the name change issue in South Carolina. The name change was denied in direct contradiction of the equal protection clause. This is one of the fundamental issues addressed by the court. States cannot treat one couple or one person differently than another. If they choose to recognize a marriage from another state and allow one of the participants in that marriage to change their name they must do the same for all legally conducted marriages from that state. They can't pick and choose. It's the same basis for the core ruling requiring Ohio to put the man's name on the death certificate of his spouse. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. The ruling you pointed to occurred before the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. The same ruling would not be made today based on that Supreme Court ruling.

My understanding of the birth certificate issue is that both married parents, regardless of sex, will be listed on birth certificates going forward. There are legal cases pending that may affect things done previously. But once again it isn't that difficult to grasp the concept that all married couples share the same rights and priviledges granted by the government.


----------



## Declan

Bearfootfarm said:


> She can be impeached for misconduct or criminal acts


She can but it is the same in KY as it is in the federal government, so it will be interesting to see if she actually holds out. Getting both houses of the legislature in the reddest state in the country wrapped up in having to be on the side of gay marriage would make for some great political theater.

Makes me think someone will find her a golden parachute/life boat that pays better to get her to move along before it will come to that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Declan said:


> She can but it is the same in KY as it is in the federal government, so it will be interesting to see if she actually holds out. Getting both houses of the legislature in the reddest state in the country wrapped up in having to be on the side of gay marriage would make for some great political theater.
> 
> Makes me think someone will find her a golden parachute/life boat that pays better to get her to move along before it will come to that.


"Gay marriage" won't be the issue for the legislature.
It will be the criminal misconduct and refusal to perform the duties of her office


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> And you should maybe use those reading and comprehension skills you take such pride in and read my post again. I spoke about the name change issue in South Carolina. The name change was denied in direct contradiction of the equal protection clause. This is one of the fundamental issues addressed by the court. States cannot treat one couple or one person differently than another. If they choose to recognize a marriage from another state and allow one of the participants in that marriage to change their name they must do the same for all legally conducted marriages from that state. They can't pick and choose. It's the same basis for the core ruling requiring Ohio to put the man's name on the death certificate of his spouse. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. The ruling you pointed to occurred before the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. The same ruling would not be made today based on that Supreme Court ruling.
> 
> My understanding of the birth certificate issue is that both married parents, regardless of sex, will be listed on birth certificates going forward. There are legal cases pending that may affect things done previously. But once again it isn't that difficult to grasp the concept that all married couples share the same rights and priviledges granted by the government.




Yes, I read and understood what you were talking about and that you missed or ignored the other cases which I copied and pasted.
I'm not stupid, I'm not retarded, and I realize it gives you and others pleasure to ridicule me about this "reading and comprehension skill" in order to keep insisting that some laws are fine when they don't discriminate against you, but that is somehow all irrelevant or that my IQ is in question when I post a law going the other way.

I would have thought my post would have been more relevant when I said people are using the courts and laws to HURT others, rather than be kind.
You could have pointed out that's what was going on at the DMV's and the clerk in Kentucky. I would have given you a pat on the back for seeing the hypocrisy in all these laws and lawsuits and congratulated you on rising above it to reach out to someone with an opposing view.

But I guess that moment passed.........

Good night.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, I read and understood what you were talking about and that you missed or ignored the other cases which I copied and pasted.
> I'm not stupid, I'm not retarded, and I realize it gives you and others pleasure to ridicule me about this "reading and comprehension skill" in order to keep insisting that some laws are fine when they don't discriminate against you, but that is somehow all irrelevant or that my IQ is in question when I post a law going the other way.
> 
> I would have thought my post would have been more relevant when I said people are using the courts and laws to HURT others, rather than be kind.
> You could have pointed out that's what was going on at the DMV's and the clerk in Kentucky. I would have given you a pat on the back for seeing the hypocrisy in all these laws and lawsuits and congratulated you on rising above it to reach out to someone with an opposing view.
> 
> But I guess that moment passed.........
> 
> Good night.


I made a comment directly about the headlined case and you chose to ignore the focus of those comments and try to apply them to the other cases. Who was being disingenuous? I don't consider you stupid or ill informed. I do think you sometimes use tactics you decry in others and I'll call you on it.


Who's hurting who? Who is using their power and the power of the state to deny others that which they are legally entitled to? It's certainly not the couples who have waited this long to get married and seem willing to wait a little longer to claim the full citizenship the constitution grants them. I don't need a pat on the back and I certainly don't want one for agreeing that fighting for ones god given right to equal treatment under the law is a bad thing. Sleep well.


----------



## Declan

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Gay marriage" won't be the issue for the legislature.
> It will be the criminal misconduct and refusal to perform the duties of her office


No it will be religious freedom in the context of gay marriage. The legislature is a political body full of politicians. I don't think they could get the votes to impeach her.


----------



## Patchouli

Declan said:


> No it will be religious freedom in the context of gay marriage. The legislature is a political body full of politicians. I don't think they could get the votes to impeach her.


I think you are right. It's all about the spin and the spin will be attacking her religious freedom to support gay marriage. Nobody gives a crap about reality anymore.


----------



## Nevada

Declan said:


> No it will be religious freedom in the context of gay marriage. The legislature is a political body full of politicians. I don't think they could get the votes to impeach her.


At least for now, the county and state don't want to get involved in this one. Religion is too much of a hot-button issue in KY and the federal court is taking care of it. The county & state will wait to see what the federal judge does before considering action.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> At least for now, the county and state don't want to get involved in this one. Religion is too much of a hot-button issue in KY and the federal court is taking care of it. The county & state will wait to see what the federal judge does before considering action.


The federal judges that count (Supreme Court) have already made it Chrystal clear as to their opinion. If they had not, this broad would still be doing her job in a discriminatory fashion and none of this would be happening.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Declan said:


> No it will be religious freedom in the context of gay marriage. The legislature is a political body full of politicians. I don't think they could get the votes to impeach her.


If they follow the laws they may not have any choice


----------



## arabian knight

Respect other peoples rights AND beliefs? Wow Thats a concept that has long been forgotten.
All these people that want to make this baker this cake is just forcing others to accept their twisted heads. And their OWN political movement and agenda to shove it in the face of good hardcore Christians who wear their believes on their sleeves.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> If they follow the laws they may not have any choice


As I said, it won't come to that. They'll just sit back and let the federal courts take care of it. If they don't have to stick their political necks out, they won't. The KY legislators may be every bit as religious is the clerk, but they aren't fools. They'll stay out of it to protect their miserable jobs. The clerk is on her own.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> Respect other peoples rights AND beliefs? Wow Thats a concept that has long been forgotten.
> All these people that want to make this baker this cake is just forcing others to accept their twisted heads. And their OWN political movement and agenda to *shove it in the face *of good hardcore Christians who wear their believes on their sleeves.


You still haven't explained what all these gay people keep shoving in your face, or why it's OK to force a religion on someone who doesn't want it


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Nevada said:


> As I said, it won't come to that. They'll just sit back and let the federal courts take care of it. If they don't have to stick their political necks out, they won't. The KY legislators may be every bit as religious is the clerk, but they aren't fools. They'll stay out of it to protect their miserable jobs. The clerk is on her own.


They may have to take action, since they are the only ones who can remove her from the position, and it seems clear she has violated some laws.


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> They may have to take action, since they are the only ones who can remove her from the position, and it seems clear she has violated some laws.


They might, but they're probably waiting to see if she's willing to go to jail over this. She may resign, and she might go to jail. Either of those options lets local government off the hook.


----------



## Trixie

To me, there's is a big difference between a public official refusing to obey the law and a baker who doesn't want to make a cake for gay couples.

I am old fashioned, I do have a problem with homosexuality - not homosexuals. But that's my hangup. As I said, I don't care who marries what. 

When I was in school, our superintendent was the superintendent, over all schools in the district, but his biggest job was doing what principals do today. We also had a principal, but he was second in command.

Both these men were great teachers, great people, and taught us a lot. Both also cared about all the kids. They made it a point to know the families, and family situations, etc. They helped so many kids in so many ways.

The townfolks loved both guys, named the new school building after one.

After I was married and had children, we were talking about things - and my Mother asked me if I realized those two men were gay and were a couple. It seemed the adults knew it, but we kids didn't. Of course, kids were naive then - few of us probably even knew what it meant.

The moral, I guess, is the adults knew and as long as those teachers were good to the kids it didn't matter.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> I made a comment directly about the headlined case and you chose to ignore the focus of those comments and try to apply them to the other cases. Who was being disingenuous? I don't consider you stupid or ill informed. I do think you sometimes use tactics you decry in others and I'll call you on it.
> 
> 
> Who's hurting who? Who is using their power and the power of the state to deny others that which they are legally entitled to? It's certainly not the couples who have waited this long to get married and seem willing to wait a little longer to claim the full citizenship the constitution grants them. I don't need a pat on the back and I certainly don't want one for agreeing that fighting for ones god given right to equal treatment under the law is a bad thing. Sleep well.



Yeah, well........

When an article has multiple stories or examples that cover a broad range of areas, I don't tend to focus on one or two to prove a point, but look at the entirety of it. To say that everything under state laws was taken care of by SCOTUS in June was simply incorrect. There are a myriad of situations that won't fit neatly in that category AND the original point was about "what would happen if your D/L was denied by the DMV for religious reasons?"
I posted the veil issue in Florida, two others states that had multiple cases, some religious, some state laws that could be used in a religious context and at the same time a legal one.

There's nothing disingenuous about my thinking process. I look for facts, think about them and discuss them. If you think I go about it with some sort of hidden agenda, then that's on you. Most of the time I'm more concerned with making sure *I* got the facts straight and the concepts involved, then deciding what's right or wrong about it. Playing word games and gotcha games and "you haven't shown proof" games is better left for others to play.


And "Who is hurting who"?
Really?
Going after businesses and people's jobs, wanting them to be fined and imprisoned?
You don't think that would hurt? Even a little?

After making the point, by way of those posts that the hurt is going on BOTH directions, you not only won't admit the same thing, but tell me, you don't need any pat on the back.
Very well, excuse the heck out of me for extending a hand and seeing the other side of the coin. I guess the lesson we are all learning IS the correct one.
Stand firm.
Give an inch and they'll take a mile.
Nothing will ever satisfy, no matter how much you concede. 






Bearfootfarm said:


> You still haven't explained what all these gay people keep shoving in your face, or why it's OK to force a religion on someone who doesn't want it



It's not ok to "force a religion on someone who doesn't want it" and it's not ok to force someone to deny their beliefs and go against them. If you can't see what's being shoved in our faces with the help of legal maneuvers, you never will.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Yeah, well........
> 
> When an article has multiple stories or examples that cover a broad range of areas, I don't tend to focus on one or two to prove a point, but look at the entirety of it. To say that everything under state laws was taken care of by SCOTUS in June was simply incorrect. There are a myriad of situations that won't fit neatly in that category AND the original point was about "what would happen if your D/L was denied by the DMV for religious reasons?"
> I posted the veil issue in Florida, two others states that had multiple cases, some religious, some state laws that could be used in a religious context and at the same time a legal one.
> 
> There's nothing disingenuous about my thinking process. I look for facts, think about them and discuss them. If you think I go about it with some sort of hidden agenda, then that's on you. Most of the time I'm more concerned with making sure *I* got the facts straight and the concepts involved, then deciding what's right or wrong about it. Playing word games and gotcha games and "you haven't shown proof" games is better left for others to play.
> 
> 
> And "Who is hurting who"?
> Really?
> Going after businesses and people's jobs, wanting them to be fined and imprisoned?
> You don't think that would hurt? Even a little?
> 
> After making the point, by way of those posts that the hurt is going on BOTH directions, you not only won't admit the same thing, but tell me, you don't need any pat on the back.
> Very well, excuse the heck out of me for extending a hand and seeing the other side of the coin. I guess the lesson we are all learning IS the correct one.
> Stand firm.
> Give an inch and they'll take a mile.
> Nothing will ever satisfy, no matter how much you concede.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not ok to "force a religion on someone who doesn't want it" and it's not ok to force someone to deny their beliefs and go against them. If you can't see what's being shoved in our faces with the help of legal maneuvers, you never will.


I discussed the veil issue in a previous post. It has nothing to do with this issue.

I specifically addressed the headlined article and you rather than addressing those words chose to tell me I needed to reread the article because you wanted to prove some other point. Nice olive branch. I did reread the article. The birth certificate dispute is now equally invalid. The law that allowed the state to turn away the teen was based on the state's now overturned constitutional amendment against gay marriage. Since the amendment doesn't stand no law based on it can. That is the problem with most of the article. All the laws and cases cited have been superceded by the Supreme Court decision.

There is no such thing as an agenda less post in discussing an issue such as this. Some agendas are more obvious than others but they all exist.

If holding people accountable for breaking laws hurts them, so be it. It is their choice to break the law. No one forces them to. To blame a couple who walk into a government office expecting the same services and treatment as any other citizens for hurting a government employee charged with providing those services is quite a stretch. To blame a couple for hurting a baker because they walked into a store advertising cakes and expected to be able to buy a cake is an equal stretch. In both cases laws are being broken. In neither case are laws being broken by the couples. Your logic dictates that somehow banks are deliberately hurting theives by having large amounts of money on hand and prosecuting them for stealing it.

I do see the other side of this issue. I do have some grudging admiriation of those who stand up for their beliefs. I also understand that stances like that can come with some sacrifice. I understand that letting people out of that sacrifice doesn't bolster esteem in my eyes, but diminishes it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## GREEN_ALIEN

arabian knight said:


> Respect other peoples rights AND beliefs? Wow Thats a concept that has long been forgotten.


Thats right, she needs to *RESPECT* other peoples *RIGHTS* and *BELIEFS* as she does not have the *RIGHT* to inject her *BELIEFS* into governmental operations. Your words dude...



arabian knight said:


> All these people that want to make this baker this cake is just forcing others to accept their twisted heads.


LOL, again dude, your words... Maybe it is the baker and his ilk with the *TWISTED* heads? 



arabian knight said:


> And their OWN political movement and agenda to shove it in the face of good hardcore Christians who wear their believes on their sleeves.


We are not talking about a political movement here... sheesh. *WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE LAW!* If you are even the tiniest bit christian you certainly understand that WE ALL ENJOY freedom of and freedom FROM religion. You have your church, keep your twisted crap inside the doors and out of MY government.

Ted


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> I don't know why you accuse me of "rambling" when I post statutes, usually in their full context.
> If you want to criticize the rambling, please direct it towards the legislatures. As for me not editing and posting one or two lines of the laws, I know from experience how deceiving that can be and will not do that.
> 
> The "point" as you asked, was that a contempt charge under federal law, and this was a federal district court that she is refusing to obey, has two components, direct contempt and indirect contempt.
> She at this time can only be charged with indirect contempt, unless she mouths off to the judge in his courtroom.
> That means she's entitled to a jury trial if she is charged with this contempt and not automatically jailed and fined without a trial...........which is what I surmise is "what most people think."
> 
> *I* didn't know all that before I looked it up, but then again, I don't know everything instantly upon reading a story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they are not, you are once again correct.
> But then again Patouli didn't exactly say that the religious views would have to be only those of the clerk's, or am I wrong?
> I haven't reread the original quote to see if it's been edited, but that wasn't what I read last night.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The examples were to show that the religious argument can go both ways. If one is to dismiss all religious beliefs from the law, then there may come a time when those laws have unforeseen and seemingly unfair consequences.
> Those that want to defend the laws that man writes, need to know of man's fallibility.
> 
> Why do I not defend this woman?
> I explained in another thread.
> While I agree with her belief that she should not authorize or give license to a same sex marriage, the government of the United States has sanctioned it now.
> Therefore as the Word says, we are to separate ourselves from the world when this happens.
> If this means finding another job, the Lord will provide. She can still not be forced to do what she will not do, and let those who wish to do it, do what they wish.
> The walk of faith is a difficult one. You will be called a coward, a bigot, a fool, a rebel, all sorts of names.
> Let them talk, meanwhile, walk the walk.


I meant to get back to this earlier. My question wasn't why you weren't defending the clerk, but why you weren't defending the Muslim woman? Sorry if I wasn't clearer.

But your response is interesting. You claim you're not defending her but have spent most of your subsequent posts doing just that, even blaming others for hurting her by expecting her to simply do the job she was elected to do. Serve her constituents. Hidden agenda?


----------



## Nevada

farmrbrown said:


> It's not ok to "force a religion on someone who doesn't want it" and it's not ok to force someone to deny their beliefs and go against them.


Nobody is forcing the clerk to deny her belief structure. But if her religious beliefs prevent her from performing the duties of county clerk then she needs to find another line of work, while keeping her belief structure intact.


----------



## craftychick

Using another example, would those supporting the clerk be ok with a Jehovahs Witness nurse refusing to give a patient the blood they needed even if it was ordered by a licensed doctor? Not only that but what if she blocked other nurses from also hanging the needed blood?

It is her belief that blood & blood products are strictly forbidden by her faith so should she be allowed to refuse and also block others from doing the procedure with no repercussions?

I had nurses while hospitalized who were JW so JW do go into the medical field.


----------



## where I want to

craftychick said:


> Using another example, would those supporting the clerk be ok with a Jehovahs Witness nurse refusing to give a patient the blood they needed even if it was ordered by a licensed doctor? Not only that but what if she blocked other nurses from also hanging the needed blood?
> 
> It is her belief that blood & blood products are strictly forbidden by her faith so should she be allowed to refuse and also block others from doing the procedure with no repercussions?
> 
> I had nurses while hospitalized who were JW so JW do go into the medical field.


I've never heard that anyone died of lack of marriage license. Well, maybe Elizabeth Taylor might have.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> It's not ok to "force a religion on someone who doesn't want it" and it's not ok to force someone to deny their beliefs and go against them. If you can't see *what's being shoved in our faces* with the help of legal maneuvers, you never will.


No one is shoving anything in your face
It's empty rhetoric.

No one has been asked to "deny their beliefs"
They've only been asked to do their jobs *without prejudice*


----------



## Evons hubby

Trixie said:


> To me, there's is a big difference between a public official refusing to obey the law and a baker who doesn't want to make a cake for gay couples.
> 
> I am old fashioned, I do have a problem with homosexuality - not homosexuals. But that's my hangup. As I said, I don't care who marries what.
> 
> When I was in school, our superintendent was the superintendent, over all schools in the district, but his biggest job was doing what principals do today. We also had a principal, but he was second in command.
> 
> Both these men were great teachers, great people, and taught us a lot. Both also cared about all the kids. They made it a point to know the families, and family situations, etc. They helped so many kids in so many ways.
> 
> The townfolks loved both guys, named the new school building after one.
> 
> After I was married and had children, we were talking about things - and my Mother asked me if I realized those two men were gay and were a couple. It seemed the adults knew it, but we kids didn't. Of course, kids were naive then - few of us probably even knew what it meant.
> 
> *The moral, I guess, is the adults knew and as long as those teachers were good to the kids it didn't matter.*


i have trouble believing the adults knew these men were gay and were ok with them being around their kids..... Everyone knows anyone who is gay is a preverted pedophile! :bouncy:


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> No one is shoving anything in your face
> It's empty rhetoric.
> 
> No one has been asked to "deny their beliefs"
> They've only been asked to do their jobs *without prejudice*


And there in lays the problem... A whole lot of our good Christian freinds and neighbors can't function "without predudice".


----------



## Deacon Mike

Bearfootfarm said:


> They may have to take action, since they are the only ones who can remove her from the position, *and it seems clear she has violated some laws.*


Well, she's violated the first amendment, for one thing.


----------



## kuriakos

Deacon Mike said:


> Well, she's violated the first amendment, for one thing.


Which part exactly? I don't believe the woman in question is Congress.


----------



## farmrbrown

From the views expressed on this thread it appears that people who wish to continue in their beliefs are now outcasts, and so be it.
Whether they join together and secede or simply renounce their American citizenship and remain on this soil, declaring their sovereignty and non-allegiance to this once great country is for each individual's choice.
I've been forming my own opinion and plan of action for a few years now, and it seems that as the majority marches on, the minority not going to be accepted and tolerated.
You simply cannot serve two Masters.
Choose wisely.

Shalom.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> From the views expressed on this thread it appears that *people who wish to continue in their beliefs are now outcasts*, and so be it.
> Whether they join together and secede or simply renounce their American citizenship and remain on this soil, declaring their sovereignty and non-allegiance to this once great country is for each individual's choice.
> I've been forming my own opinion and plan of action for a few years now, and it seems that as the majority marches on, the minority not going to be accepted and tolerated.
> You simply cannot serve two Masters.
> Choose wisely.
> 
> Shalom.


Why be so melodramatic about something so simple?

She's forcing her religion on the public by refusing to do her job

She's not being persecuted in any way, although it appears she will soon be *prosecuted*


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> From the views expressed on this thread it appears that people who wish to continue in their beliefs are now outcasts, and so be it.
> Whether they join together and secede or simply renounce their American citizenship and remain on this soil, declaring their sovereignty and non-allegiance to this once great country is for each individual's choice.
> I've been forming my own opinion and plan of action for a few years now, and it seems that as the majority marches on, the minority not going to be accepted and tolerated.
> You simply cannot serve two Masters.
> Choose wisely.
> 
> Shalom.


Where is the tolerance by you and this woman for people who believe that all people should be treated equally by government. I have no problem with this woman believing whatever she wishes. But when she uses the power of a government office to deny anyone that which they are legally entitled to she has gone beyond holding her personal beliefs sacred. She is showing no respect for others beliefs. This is all about the majority respecting the minority. Gays will always be the minority. How about a little respect for some of these people who have lived, worked and sacrificed for decades to simply be treated as full citizens with full rights?


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> From the views expressed on this thread it appears that people who wish to continue in their beliefs are now outcasts, and so be it.
> Whether they join together and secede or simply renounce their American citizenship and remain on this soil, declaring their sovereignty and non-allegiance to this once great country is for each individual's choice.
> I've been forming my own opinion and plan of action for a few years now, and it seems that as the majority marches on, the minority not going to be accepted and tolerated.
> You simply cannot serve two Masters.
> Choose wisely.
> 
> Shalom.


Maybe read this story. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20140226-after-53-years-together-dallas-gay-couple-to-wed.ece

53 years together. Read about their sacrifices, losses and the persecution they faced and tell me they should be denied. At least one Methodist minister had it right.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> Where is the tolerance by you and this woman for people who believe that all people should be treated equally by government. I have no problem with this woman believing whatever she wishes. But when she uses the power of a government office to deny anyone that which they are legally entitled to she has gone beyond holding her personal beliefs sacred. She is showing no respect for others beliefs. * This is all about the majority respecting the minority.* Gays will always be the minority. How about a little respect for some of these people who have lived, worked and sacrificed for decades to simply be treated as full citizens with full rights?


Yes, tolerance indeed.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws.htm

To live among other people and allow them to live their lives without prosecution, fines and imprisonment, I can certainly agree with that.
Even if they are breaking laws on the books for 200 years, I never agreed that they should be sought out and prosecuted. That is going too far.
In 2003 the SCOTUS ruled that they shouldn't be either in the Texas _Lawrence_ case.

Now that the law is on THEIR side, we shall see what *their* view of tolerance for minorities is, won't we?
Or are we seeing it now, as we speak?

It doesn't hurt much to be thrown in jail, lose your job, lose your business and be compared to common criminals does it?
After all, we are only seeking tolerance and equal treatment, those people broke the "law" and did it to themselves, I believe that was the view you expressed.

Same hammer, different victims.:bash:


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> Yes, tolerance indeed.
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_laws.htm
> 
> To live among other people and allow them to live their lives without prosecution, fines and imprisonment, I can certainly agree with that.
> Even if they are breaking laws on the books for 200 years, I never agreed that they should be sought out and prosecuted. That is going too far.
> In 2003 the SCOTUS ruled that they shouldn't be either in the Texas _Lawrence_ case.
> 
> Now that the law is on THEIR side, we shall see what *their* view of tolerance for minorities is, won't we?
> Or are we seeing it now, as we speak?
> 
> It doesn't hurt much to be thrown in jail, lose your job, lose your business and be compared to common criminals does it?
> After all, we are only seeking tolerance and equal treatment, those people broke the "law" and did it to themselves, I believe that was the view you expressed.
> 
> Same hammer, different victims.:bash:


The laws and legalized discrimination directed at gays were a special hammer specifically directed at them and who they were. They were singled out for special treatment with special laws and special blows from those hammers only because they happened to love someone society disapproved of. There is no special hammer being used on you, this clerk, or the bakers. All are simply required to follow the same laws and in their public affairs treat all people the same. What you do or say behind closed doors doesn't matter. You can even work as hard as you wish to change those laws you dislike. The government doesn't matter, nor should it. This woman wants to keep wielding that government hammer. It's a hammer that should have been removed from the tool box long ago. It's a hammer that needs to be hung, once and for all, on a museum wall to remind us what not to do with government power. If this woman had not chosen to try to use her formerly powerful hammer against others and simply done her job, as the law requires of all public officials, we would not know her name or the names of those seeking to be married. That is how it should have been and should be going forward. There should be nothing special about a gay couple getting a wedding license or buying a cake. There should be no need for government hammers. There should be no need for discussions like this.


----------



## Laura Zone 5

I haven't read this thread.

1. Good for her. Stand your ground.

Why not?
BLM are breaking the law, and we celebrate.
Baltimore rioted, and we 'agreed with them'
Ferguson rioted, and we sympathized with them.
WBC does their disgusting thing, and we defend their freedom of speech

I could go on and on and on........

Oy Vey.


----------



## mmoetc

Suppose a person working as a government inspector in a slaughter house had a conversion of faith and adopted Janaism, a faith that requires everyone to be vegetarian. Would everyone defending the clerk's action defend this inspector's religious right to stop the killing of animals in the facility under his charge?


----------



## Laura Zone 5

I guess I'd buy my meat else where? I sure wouldn't drive from a different state, and demand meat when I know darn good and well, I was not going to get it........That's dumb.

Was she employed BEFORE gay marriage was legal?
If so I imagine she'd never have to do anything against her religion in her job?

Who knows.
This is no different than the above mentioned.


----------



## mmoetc

Laura Zone 10 said:


> I guess I'd buy my meat else where? I sure wouldn't drive from a different state, and demand meat when I know darn good and well, I was not going to get it........That's dumb.
> 
> Was she employed BEFORE gay marriage was legal?
> If so I imagine she'd never have to do anything against her religion in her job?
> 
> Who knows.
> This is no different than the above mentioned.


This is the closest slaughter house to your farm. You pay your taxes in part to have this government facility process the meat from your farm for resale. It is how you make your living. A government employee is now using his religous belief to shut down the facility and your livelihood. Still so complacent?

She did the same job previously. She issued licenses to all legally qualified couples that walked through the door. Her job hasn't changed.


----------



## arabian knight

Laura Zone 10 said:


> I haven't read this thread.
> 
> 1. Good for her. Stand your ground.
> 
> Why not?
> BLM are breaking the law, and we celebrate.
> Baltimore rioted, and we 'agreed with them'
> Ferguson rioted, and we sympathized with them.
> WBC does their disgusting thing, and we defend their freedom of speech
> 
> I could go on and on and on........
> 
> Oy Vey.


So true. She is only standing up to what she deeply believes in her faith. What in the world are so many people saying she is wrong. Laws? well her law enforcement officer is of a higher calling. And just because some law is there don't make it right. Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom FROM Religion. Can't some get that through their heads. Freedom in this country is just that FREEDOM. But not so now according to the progressive liberal lefties.


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> So true. She is only standing up to what she deeply believes in her faith. What in the world are so many people saying she is wrong. Laws? well her law enforcement officer is of a higher calling. And just because some law is there don't make it right. Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom FROM Religion. Can't some get that through their heads. Freedom in this country is just that FREEDOM. But not so now according to the progressive liberal lefties.


Why does her freedom get to trump someone else's freedom?


----------



## mmoetc

arabian knight said:


> So true. She is only standing up to what she deeply believes in her faith. What in the world are so many people saying she is wrong. Laws? well her law enforcement officer is of a higher calling. And just because some law is there don't make it right. Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom FROM Religion. Can't some get that through their heads. Freedom in this country is just that FREEDOM. But not so now according to the progressive liberal lefties.


Then you'd agree that the Janaist has the religous right to shut down operations at the slaughterhouse?


----------



## Jim Bunton

arabian knight said:


> So true. She is only standing up to what she deeply believes in her faith. What in the world are so many people saying she is wrong. Laws? well her law enforcement officer is of a higher calling. And just because some law is there don't make it right. Freedom of Religion NOT Freedom FROM Religion. Can't some get that through their heads. Freedom in this country is just that FREEDOM. But not so now according to the progressive liberal lefties.


There can be no freedom of religion without freedom from religion. There are too many religions with their own beliefs with out the freedom from those contradictory beliefs you can never follow your own beliefs.
Jim


----------



## stanb999

So she pretends to be a good christian so she doesn't have to do government work. This lady is laughably ridiculous.

Where in the bible does it say a marriage license is needed at all? About the only passages that can be construed are those about listening to your government AKA give on Caesar... So she should just shut and submit.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by arabian knight View Post
> So true. She is *only standing up to what she deeply believes in her faith*. What in the world are so many people saying she is wrong.


That's what ISIS does when they behead Christians


----------



## Irish Pixie

Kim Davis was found to be in contempt of court and taken into custody.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-court-clerk-marriage-licenses-gays/71635794/


----------



## keenataz

Laura Zone 10 said:


> I haven't read this thread.
> 
> 1. Good for her. Stand your ground.
> 
> Why not?
> BLM are breaking the law, and we celebrate.
> Baltimore rioted, and we 'agreed with them'
> Ferguson rioted, and we sympathized with them.
> WBC does their disgusting thing, and we defend their freedom of speech
> 
> I could go on and on and on........
> 
> Oy Vey.


First none of this has a thing to do with gay marriage, unless you are equating gay marriage to violently breaking the law.

And who is this "we" who celebrated, agreed and sympathized?


----------



## Nevada

Irish Pixie said:


> Kim Davis was found to be in contempt of court and taken into custody.
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-court-clerk-marriage-licenses-gays/71635794/


I really expected them to work something out. The judge is sending a strong message.


----------



## painterswife

I applaud her for holding to her principals. I don't however do not respect how she did it. She should have resigned because she is unable to do the job.


----------



## Nevada

painterswife said:


> I applaud her for holding to her principals. I don't however do not respect how she did it. She should have resigned because she is unable to do the job.


Refusing the follow both law and court orders took her down a bad road. Unfortunately she's not going to be remembered as some kind of Rosa Parks, since she's on the wrong side of history.


----------



## GREEN_ALIEN

U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning placed Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis in the custody of U.S. marshals until she complies...

I like this judge. He believes fines won't work so he just chunked her butt in the clink until she decides to follow the law.

She has no appeals, the supreme court doesn't give a rip about her case and shes now living on three hots (as it were) and a cot. She will shortly be out of her 80K a year job and is being sued by various couples. She will lose those lawsuits as well and will likely lose some of her cash in the process.

WAY TO GO, KIM! Keep holding on to those beliefs and let me know how that's working out for ya in six months or so...

Sheeesh.


----------



## Shine

GREEN_ALIEN said:


> WAY TO GO, KIM! Keep holding on to those beliefs and let me know how that's working out for ya in six months or so...
> 
> Sheeesh.



I wonder, might this not be a crown[reward] once she reaches Heaven, what's 40 years compared to eternity?


----------



## painterswife

Looks like the clerks under here have been ordered by the court to start issuing licenses. There is another court case this afternoon.


----------



## painterswife

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/kentucky_clerk_kim_davis_appea.html

"2:14 p.m. Five of six deputy clerks say they will issue licenses. Davis' son, also a deputy clerk, appears to be the only holdout."


----------



## wr

Shine said:


> I wonder, might this not be a crown[reward] once she reaches Heaven, what's 40 years compared to eternity?


Would stealing wages from her employer while refusing to do her job also earn her a crown in eternity too? I would think one may negate the other. 

If she had quit her job because of her faith or even took a leave of absence and picketed her place of employment, I would have strongly supported her and her ethics but it seems unethical to me to expect payment while refusing to do one's job.


----------



## painterswife

They are now bringing Kim Davis back to court.

It looks like she may get out of jail if she agrees not to interfere with the 5 deputies issuing licences.


----------



## susieneddy

painterswife said:


> They are now bringing Kim Davis back to court.
> 
> It looks like she may get out of jail if she agrees not to interfere with the 5 deputies issuing licences.


they should make her sign the licences since that is her job. If she refuses it is back to jail.


----------



## Nevada

susieneddy said:


> they should make her sign the licences since that is her job. If she refuses it is back to jail.


I'm OK with a deputy clerk signing the license.


----------



## susieneddy

Nevada said:


> I'm OK with a deputy clerk signing the license.


If the deputy clerk could have signed them then, then they should have been signing the license already and none of this would have happened. Since she didn't allow them to she should sign it now


----------



## Raeven

Maybe this perspective will help those who are disappointed by the judge's decision (which was a foregone conclusion, frankly) to see it another way, with the shoe on the other foot:

I worked as a judge's assistant for many years. As such, I was required to administer oaths to prospective jurors, jurors, witnesses, interpreters and anyone else I was required to swear in as part of my duties. Every single official oath included the language, "... so help you, God." I am an atheist, and I administered those oaths including that language, which is utterly meaningless to me, probably close to 50,000 times over my career.

Did I have a right to reject that language simply because I am a non-believer? No. Each judge could decide how oaths were to be administered in his/her courtroom, and every judge for whom I was a primary clerk wanted the language included. So it was my job. I had no right to impose my personal lack of belief on anyone else, even though my views are as strongly held as any religious person's.

*Do your job, the whole job, or go find a job you can do within the framework of your personally-held views.
*
It's pretty simple, really.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Raeven said:


> Maybe this perspective will help those who are disappointed by the judge's decision (which was a foregone conclusion, frankly) to see it another way, with the shoe on the other foot:
> 
> I worked as a judge's assistant for many years. As such, I was required to administer oaths to prospective jurors, jurors, witnesses, interpreters and anyone else I was required to swear in as part of my duties. Every single official oath included the language, "... so help you, God." I am an atheist, and I administered those oaths including that language, which is utterly meaningless to me, probably close to 50,000 times over my career.
> 
> Did I have a right to reject that language simply because I am a non-believer? No. Each judge could decide how oaths were to be administered in his/her courtroom, and every judge for whom I was a primary clerk wanted the language included. So it was my job. I had no right to impose my personal lack of belief on anyone else, even though my views are as strongly held as any religious person's.
> 
> *Do your job, the whole job, or go find a job you can do within the framework of your personally-held views.
> *
> It's pretty simple, really.


Best, most thoughtful and relevant post on this subject that I've seen.


----------



## Nevada

susieneddy said:


> If the deputy clerk could have signed them then, then they should have been signing the license already and none of this would have happened. Since she didn't allow them to she should sign it now


It's a moot point now. She won't allow her deputy clerks to do it either. It a late hearing this afternoon her lawyer said she wouldn't allow it.

_Davis' lawyer told U.S. District Judge David Bunning that their client would not allow her deputies to issue the licenses._
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriage-kim-davis/index.html

This is strange, since her lawyer previously suggested that she would issue licenses if she didn't have to personally sign them. I think she's gone completely flaky on this.


----------



## Evons hubby

Shine said:


> I wonder, might this not be a crown[reward] once she reaches Heaven, what's 40 years compared to eternity?


What makes you think she will ever see heaven? Is God really that fond of bigots? If her and her kind go to heaven, I might be better off elsewhere!


----------



## Nevada

Nevada said:


> It's a moot point now. She won't allow her deputy clerks to do it either. It a late hearing this afternoon her lawyer said she wouldn't allow it.
> 
> _Davis' lawyer told U.S. District Judge David Bunning that their client would not allow her deputies to issue the licenses._
> http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/politics/kentucky-clerk-same-sex-marriage-kim-davis/index.html
> 
> This is strange, since her lawyer previously suggested that she would issue licenses if she didn't have to personally sign them. I think she's gone completely flaky on this.


Her refusal to authorize her deputies to sign marriage certificates is starting to smell of a Christian telling other people how to live. While I disagreed with her, I have had sympathy for her position up until now. But this changes things.


----------



## arabian knight

Good for her Stand her ground No Matter What the left says they want. This stuff is way beyond right or wrong now. It is those types trying to shove their believes in other people faces when those people don;t want it, don;t believe in it. Just GO and find another place instead of making such a big deal over nothing. Except to make some political statement in the face of this ONCE great Christ Like Nation.


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> Good for her Stand her ground No Matter What the left says they want. This stuff is way beyond right or wrong now. It is those types trying to shove their believes in other people faces when those people don;t want it, don;t believe in it. Just GO and find another place instead of making such a big deal over nothing. Except to make some political statement in the face of this ONCE great Christ Like Nation.


She is doing exactly what you say you are upset about.


----------



## Evons hubby

arabian knight said:


> Good for her Stand her ground No Matter What the left says they want. This stuff is way beyond right or wrong now. It is those types trying to shove their believes in other people faces when those people don;t want it, don;t believe in it. Just GO and find another place instead of making such a big deal over nothing. Except to make some political statement in the face of this *ONCE great Christ Like Nation*.


Ok, I gotta ask.... At what point in our nations history could God have looked down and said, "hey son, come here and look at this, a nation behaving just like you!"?


----------



## Belfrybat

Now she is just grandstanding. To not allow the deputies to issue marriage licenses tells me this has less to do about her religion than about getting attention. 

Also, the Bible is very clear that Christians will be persecuted -- that is written as a promise to us. There is no provision I can think of that would allow a Christian to not obey the law and not to pay the consequence. That could be construed as persecution by some. 

It is also very clear that Christians are to obey the law of the land or accept the consequences. I can't think of a single passage in the New Testament which would support her stance to not allow her deputies to issue marriage licenses. Actually, I can't find any passage that supports her refusal to do as Christians are enjoined both by Christ and by the apostle Paul to obey the government leaders. 



> Romans 13:1-7
> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ...
> *Titus 3:1 *
> 
> Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work.


----------



## painterswife

The respect I had for her standing her ground is gone. Now she is trying to impose her beliefs on others trying to do their jobs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Shine said:


> I wonder, might this not be a crown[reward] once she reaches Heaven, what's 40 years compared to eternity?


I'll give her a week or so and she'll be ready to compromise.


----------



## InTownForNow

Yes we are supposed to follow the law because the authorities are put in place by God. But we are not bound to follow the law when it conflicts with His law, which is always correct. I applaud her and i hope that someday if/when im called to defend my beliefs like that , that i will have the same courage.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> Good for her Stand her ground No Matter What the left says they want. This stuff is way beyond right or wrong now.
> 
> *It is those types trying to shove their believes in other people faces when those people don;t want it, don;t believe in it.*
> 
> Just GO and find another place instead of making such a big deal over nothing. Except to make some political statement in the face of this ONCE great Christ Like Nation.


Do you read what you post?
Do you really not see that *she* is the one doing that?


----------



## Belfrybat

I read that she is an Apostolic Christian, so decided to do a bit of reading on that church (hadn't heard of it before). They believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, according to the King James version. Under their statements of belief is the following item:



> 17. Governmental authority is respected and obeyed. Members serve in a non-combatant status in the military. *Oaths are not taken, but truth is affirmed*.
> _Matthew 22:21
> __Luke 3:14
> __Romans 13:1-10
> __1 Timothy 2:1-2
> __Hebrews 12:14
> __James 5:12
> __1 Peter 2:12-14_




I wonder how she could take an oath of office yet stay true to her church and a literal interpretation of the Bible?


----------



## greg273

InTownForNow said:


> Yes we are supposed to follow the law because the authorities are put in place by God. But we are not bound to follow the law when it conflicts with His law, which is always correct. I applaud her and i hope that someday if/when im called to defend my beliefs like that , that i will have the same courage.


 If she has a problem doing her job, which she obviously does, then she should step down. Its as simple as that. No one is asking her to accept gay marriage, they are asking her to put a rubber stamp on some documents and put them in a filing cabinet. If God has a problem with gay people he can deal with them in his own way. I am certainly not going to add to their misery by treating them worse.


----------



## greg273

Belfrybat said:


> I read that she is an Apostolic Christian, so decided to do a bit of reading on that church (hadn't heard of it before). They believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, according to the King James version. Under their statements of belief is the following item:
> 
> [/I]
> 
> I wonder how she could take an oath of office yet stay true to her church and a literal interpretation of the Bible?


 Its simple, she has to choose. I'm sure she likes her cushy job filing papers for $80K a year, but if 'King James' literal interpretation of ancient Mosaic law is what she believes in, then the choice should be easy for her. 
And so no one construes this as 'Christian bashing', the same would go for anyone who takes a job. If your personal beliefs prevent you from doing a job, then you're free to leave, don't expect the job to change.
What if the situation was a black lady who had a problem with white people and wouldn't issue a license to a white person?? I wouldn't appreciate it, even if she had some ancient religious gripe against white people. Either do your job, or don't. No one is forcing her to stay.


----------



## Agriculture

Go to jail just because you refuse to give up your belief in fairy tales? I always said that it should be against the law to be stupid. Looks like it finally happened.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Belfrybat said:


> I read that she is an Apostolic Christian, so decided to do a bit of reading on that church (hadn't heard of it before). They believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, according to the King James version. Under their statements of belief is the following item:
> 
> [/I]
> 
> I wonder *how she could take an oath of office *yet stay true to her church and a literal interpretation of the Bible?


I suspect the power of the office, and the $80,000 salary had more influence than any "religion"


----------



## Nevada

greg273 said:


> If your personal beliefs prevent you from doing a job, then you're free to leave, don't expect the job to change.


I wonder how she thinks this will turn out? She can't realistically believe that she's going the change the court's mind on gay marriage. She also can't believe that the clerk's office can go indefinitely without issuing marriage licenses. So what does she see as an acceptable end to this thing?

Really, she has only two choices here, 1) resign as county clerk, or 2) agree to issue marriage licenses to everyone. Being stubborn in jail isn't going to accomplish anything.


----------



## greg273

Nevada said:


> I wonder how she thinks this will turn out? She can't realistically believe that she's going the change the court's mind on gay marriage. She also can't believe that the clerk's office can go indefinitely without issuing marriage licenses. So what does she see as an acceptable end to this thing?
> 
> Really, she has only two choices here, 1) resign as county clerk, or 2) agree to issue marriage licenses to everyone. Being stubborn in jail isn't going to accomplish anything.


 Putting her is jail is kind of dumb... that'll just give her a 'martyr' complex. And I don't want to pay for her food, lodging, or waste the jails space on such a person, being she is just speaking her conscience not a danger to anyone. 
I'd tell her we're going to have a special election since you can't do your job, and your name will NOT be on the ballot.


----------



## kuriakos

Looks to me like he already developed a martyr complex before jail. She was supposedly ready to make a deal that would have allowed her to keep her job without denying marriage licenses to anyone, but apparently she had a change of heart, maybe because going to jail will make her an even bigger hero to a certain segment of the population. Those like arabian knight here at Homesteading Today will write folk songs about her and put "Free Kim Davis" bumper stickers on their cars. She probably had nothing better going on in her life so being a martyr sounds good.


----------



## Nevada

kuriakos said:


> She probably had nothing better going on in her life so being a martyr sounds good.


I don't know about that. What are the chances she'll make $80,000 again during her lifetime?


----------



## tamarackreg

She should have claimed "changing the rules in the middle of the game".


----------



## RichNC

tamarackreg said:


> She should have claimed "changing the rules in the middle of the game".


If so, which is a non-issue, it is a law which she took an oath to abide by, then she should have just resigned.


----------



## Raeven

tamarackreg said:


> She should have claimed "changing the rules in the middle of the game".


If you work in the legal system in this country, the one thing of which you can be sure is that the laws will change. Constantly.

Her oath was to uphold the laws of the United States as they are enacted -- whatever they are. You don't get to add, "except the ones I don't like," when you take that oath. If she couldn't commit to it, she shouldn't have taken the job. Or if the job changed such that she could no longer do it, then it is incumbent upon her to make the change. Not the law.


----------



## Evons hubby

InTownForNow said:


> Yes we are supposed to follow the law because the authorities are put in place by God. But we are not bound to follow the law when it conflicts with His law, which is always correct. I applaud her and i hope that someday if/when im called to defend my beliefs like that , that i will have the same courage.


How does handing an application form to someone violate Gods law? It's not like she is being asked to join in the wedding night festivities.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by tamarackreg View Post
> She should have claimed "changing the rules in the middle of the game".


The rules of her job never changed at all.
She gives people some paperwork and then signs it to certify it was completed in accordance with the law. Her personal beliefs have no bearing on anything


----------



## arabian knight

*Liberty Is Officially Dead In This Country*











> For the first time in our entire history, a Christian is jailed for exercising her faith and refusing to obey a lawless Supreme Court decision that had no power to create law or rights out of thin air.
> *Look at that picture again. That is the future for biblical Christians in America &#8211; prison&#8230;. or worse*. All to the cheers of a hedonistic mob that worships the State and holds whatever an Activist Supreme Court says as Holy Writ, rather than abide what the Living God of scripture says.
> 
> The First Amendment is officially abolished&#8230; for biblical Christians &#8211; by default with this act of tyranny. Yesterday it was bakeries and photographers who refused to comply with the homosexual agenda. Today it is elected officials. Tomorrow &#8211; it will be you. Already there are calls to ban devout Christians from running for or holding public office.


https://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2015/09/03/screw-america-liberty-is-officially-dead-in-this-country/


----------



## InTownForNow

Elected worker or not, govt employee or not, she cannot constitutionally or rationally be forced to abandon her religious beliefs when she clocks in. Govt workers have 1st amendment rights too. This sad day will open the door to a new America mark my words. 

People arent used to seeing bold Christians with enough guts and faith to not hand over their convictions the moment someone objects to getting their feelngs hurt. I can only hope that they see more and more christians like her as the ball of tyranny starts down this slippery slope.


----------



## Belfrybat

InTownForNow said:


> Elected worker or not, govt employee or not, she cannot constitutionally or rationally be forced to abandon her religious beliefs when she clocks in. Govt workers have 1st amendment rights too. This sad day will open the door to a new America mark my words.
> 
> People arent used to seeing bold Christians with enough guts and faith to not hand over their convictions the moment someone objects to getting their feelngs hurt. I can only hope that they see more and more christians like her as the ball of tyranny starts down this slippery slope.


*No one at any time has required the clerk to not follow her beliefs in this situation.* I'm a Christian and have been at conflict (and some might say persecuted) when my beliefs and the requirements of the workplace diverged. I resigned because I couldn't, in good conscience, continue with that company. No one forced me to "abandon my religious beliefs" as you state above. I had a choice -- "obey" my employer or resign. I chose the latter based on what the Bible teaches. No one is forcing the clerk to abandon her religious beliefs. She is not being required to marry gays or to agree to their lifestyle. She is being required to fulfill the oath of office she *willingly* took. Or resign in protest that she cannot do that because of her beliefs. 

There was a heated thread a month or so ago about vaccinations and the fact that fetal tissue was used in the production of some vaccines. Yet it was pointed out that even the Catholic Church, which is definitely opposed to abortion, allows those vaccines to be used by their members because the good outweighs the bad. So Scripture, as important as it is for Christians, is taken in context, not literally at all times. This is one of those times, IMO.

Besides, Scripture really isn't clear on the issue of gay marriage. Jesus certainly doesn't address it.


----------



## farmrbrown

Belfrybat said:


> Now she is just grandstanding. To not allow the deputies to issue marriage licenses tells me this has less to do about her religion than about getting attention.
> 
> Also, the Bible is very clear that Christians will be persecuted -- that is written as a promise to us. There is no provision I can think of that would allow a Christian to not obey the law and not to pay the consequence. That could be construed as persecution by some.
> 
> It is also very clear that Christians are to obey the law of the land or accept the consequences. I can't think of a single passage in the New Testament which would support her stance to not allow her deputies to issue marriage licenses. Actually, I can't find any passage that supports her refusal to do as Christians are enjoined both by Christ and by the apostle Paul to obey the government leaders.




Since those verses regarding obeying the law are going to be used by some in the clerk's example, perhaps this might be a good time to remind folks where Paul was when he wrote several of his epistles.

http://www.biblestudy.org/question/how-long-was-apostle-paul-in-prison.html


----------



## Agriculture

arabian knight said:


> *Liberty Is Officially Dead In This Country*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://swordattheready.wordpress.com/2015/09/03/screw-america-liberty-is-officially-dead-in-this-country/


Maybe someone will give her a courage award, and she can go up on stage with Bruce Jenner to accept it.


----------



## Farmerga

I am still waiting for the perp walks for the city council members in San Fransisco, the government officials in Colorado and Washington state, and President Obama for ignoring Federal law/Federal court orders. 

If we were still a nation of laws, those would be forthcoming, but, alas, we are now a nation of men and SOME can ignore laws at will without consequence. That is the really sad thing about this "fundamentally changed" nation in which we currently find ourselves.


----------



## Agriculture

Farmerga said:


> I am still waiting for the perp walks for the city council members in San Fransisco, the government officials in Colorado and Washington state, and President Obama for ignoring Federal law/Federal court orders.
> 
> If we were still a nation of laws, those would be forthcoming, but, alas, we are now a nation of men and SOME can ignore laws at will without consequence. That is the really sad thing about this "fundamentally changed" nation in which we currently find ourselves.


The difference is that no one is getting arrested for ignoring laws that are hurting people. This broad decided to push her agenda of discrimination under the guise of (foolish) religious belief. Remember, the KKK also tried to justify their actions based on the same book of fairy tales.


----------



## Farmerga

Agriculture said:


> The difference is that no one is getting arrested for ignoring laws that are hurting people. This broad decided to push her agenda of discrimination under the guise of (foolish) religious belief. Remember, the KKK also tried to justify their actions based on the same book of fairy tales.


I am not trying to justify what she did/ is doing. I am only asking why some can ignore federal law with impunity and others are sent to jail for doing the same? Are we a nation of laws, or, a nation of men? 

BTW, it can be argued, convincingly, that SF ignoring Federal law has lead to the deaths of some people. Like it, or, not this woman ignoring a Federal court order, results in little more than inconvenience.

Also, who gets to decide if Federal law is "hurting" people, or, not? Again, are we a nation of laws, or, a nation of men and do you not see the danger of being nation of men?


----------



## k9

Didn't a women get gunned down by a illegal alien taking refuge in San Fran as it is a safe harbor for them ignoring Federal Law? Seems she paid with her life, that seems to be hurting someone.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I am not trying to justify what she did/ is doing. I am only asking why some can ignore federal law with impunity and others are sent to jail for doing the same? Are we a nation of laws, or, a nation of men?
> 
> BTW, it can be argued, convincingly, that SF ignoring Federal law has lead to the deaths of some people. Like it, or, not this woman ignoring a Federal court order, results in little more than inconvenience.
> 
> Also, who gets to decide if Federal law is "hurting" people, or, not? Again, are we a nation of laws, or, a nation of men and do you not see the danger of being nation of men?


Gain standing, file the lawsuit against these entities and let the chips fall. The government didn't single this woman out. Those with a grievance filed lawsuits against her for not fulfilling her duties. This is what the judges have ruled on. Want them to rule on your pet peeve? File the papers.


----------



## Farmerga

Agriculture said:


> The difference is that no one is getting arrested for ignoring laws that are hurting people. This broad decided to push her agenda of discrimination under the guise of (foolish) religious belief. Remember, *the KKK also tried to justify their actions based on the same book of fairy tales.*


So did the abolitionists, many charities, and many other people who most would think of as good, noble groups.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> Gain standing, file the lawsuit against these entities and let the chips fall. The government didn't single this woman out. Those with a grievance filed lawsuits against her for not fulfilling her duties. This is what the judges have ruled on. Want them to rule on your pet peeve? File the papers.


 
Many of those lawsuits have been filed, many have been ignored because popular opinion and "feelings" have been used to replace the rule of law. That is my point, the system is broken. 

Personally, I believe this woman should resign from her post, and should be held accountable for her actions, but, I also believe that others, who break Federal law, should face the same consequences. It is not a matter of my "pet peeves" It is a matter of rule of law, or, lack thereof. 

What is a pet peeve is when the folks, who cheer the incarceration of this woman for ignoring a court order or breaking Federal law, choose to ignore people on "their side" who do the same thing because they FEEL that the law is unjust or "hurts" people.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> Many of those lawsuits have been filed, many have been ignored because popular opinion and "feelings" have been used to replace the rule of law. That is my point, the system is broken.
> 
> Personally, I believe this woman should resign from her post, and should be held accountable for her actions, but, I also believe that others, who break Federal law, should face the same consequences. It is not a matter of my "pet peeves" It is a matter of rule of law, or, lack thereof.
> 
> What is a pet peeve is when the folks, who cheer the incarceration of this woman for ignoring a court order or breaking Federal law, choose to ignore people on "their side" who do the same thing because they FEEL that the law is unjust or "hurts" people.


Lawsuits do not get ignored. Please provide some proof of your statements. When court cases are filed they have to go through the system.


----------



## Farmerga

painterswife said:


> Lawsuits do not get ignored. Please provide some proof of your statements. When court cases are filed they have to go through the system.


 That was a misstatement. 

I meant that the law is, many times, ignored.


----------



## painterswife

Farmerga said:


> That was a misstatement.
> 
> I meant that the law is, many times, ignored.


Our system only works when people use it. You can claim it is broken all you like but unless you fight for it to change then you are complaining and have no grounds to stand on.

Same sex couple got their right to marry by going to court. Fighting the laws. Putting themselves out there.


----------



## Agriculture

> What is a pet peeve is when the folks, who cheer the incarceration of this woman for ignoring a court order or breaking Federal law, choose to ignore people on "their side" who do the same thing because they FEEL that the law is unjust or "hurts" people.


I understand your point, however few of those of us who are happy that this woman is getting what she deserves are out there actively denying people's rights and forcing our personal beliefs on them. We're also not ignoring a judge's ruling on the matter which orders us personally to comply. I agree that few of these armchair christians who like to preach their drivel would be willing to take a stand as she did, yet I'm glad that she did, to set a good example for the rest of them that their time is past and their nonsense will no longer be tolerated by thinking people.


----------



## Farmerga

Agriculture said:


> I understand your point, however few of those of us who are happy that this woman is getting what she deserves are out there actively denying people's rights and forcing our personal beliefs on them. We're also not ignoring a judge's ruling on the matter which orders us personally to comply. I agree that few of these armchair christians who like to preach their drivel would be willing to take a stand as she did, yet I'm glad that she did, to set a good example for the rest of them that *their time is past and their nonsense will no longer be tolerated by thinking people.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> That sounds an awful lot like you would advocate the denial of freedom of religion. Would not what you describe be forcing your personal belief on others?


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> Many of those lawsuits have been filed, many have been ignored because popular opinion and "feelings" have been used to replace the rule of law. That is my point, the system is broken.
> 
> Personally, I believe this woman should resign from her post, and should be held accountable for her actions, but, I also believe that others, who break Federal law, should face the same consequences. It is not a matter of my "pet peeves" It is a matter of rule of law, or, lack thereof.
> 
> What is a pet peeve is when the folks, who cheer the incarceration of this woman for ignoring a court order or breaking Federal law, choose to ignore people on "their side" who do the same thing because they FEEL that the law is unjust or "hurts" people.


What lawsuits have been ignored? I know of some cases that have been dismissed for various reasons and others that are still working their way through the courts. That doesn't mean they have been ignored. 

Governments have discretion in how they enforce laws and even what laws they enforce. Twenty some states still have laws on the books outlawing adultery in various forms. I see no great public outcry that these laws are ignored by law enforcement. Cars routinely pass officers set up on the local interstate to enforce laws at a rate of speed exceeding that posted. I see no public demand that every car, even one mile per hour over the limit, be pulled over and cited.

The people affected by the enforcement or non enforcement of the law get to decide its harm. They get to choose which laws to challenge. Systems are in place to handle those challenges and when they are decided public officials must follow those rulings or not. That is what this case is all about. A public official denying the legal challenge requiring her to do her job. Want other laws enforced- legally challenge the fact they aren't.

I gain no joy from this woman being behind bars. I am happy that those denied their full citizenship by her will have to wait no longer.


----------



## arabian knight

Farmerga said:


> Many of those lawsuits have been filed, many have been ignored because popular opinion and "feelings" have been used to replace the rule of law. That is my point, the system is broken.
> 
> Personally, I believe this woman should resign from her post, and should be held accountable for her actions, but, I also believe that others, who break Federal law, should face the same consequences. It is not a matter of my "pet peeves" It is a matter of rule of law, or, lack thereof.
> 
> What is a pet peeve is when the folks, who cheer the incarceration of this woman for ignoring a court order or breaking Federal law, choose to ignore people on "their side" who do the same thing because they FEEL that the law is unjust or "hurts" people.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> *What lawsuits have been ignored?* I know of some cases that have been dismissed for various reasons and others that are still working their way through the courts. That doesn't mean they have been ignored.
> 
> Governments have discretion in how they enforce laws and even what laws they enforce. Twenty some states still have laws on the books outlawing adultery in various forms. I see no great public outcry that these laws are ignored by law enforcement. Cars routinely pass officers set up on the local interstate to enforce laws at a rate of speed exceeding that posted. I see no public demand that every car, even one mile per hour over the limit, be pulled over and cited.
> 
> The people affected by the enforcement or non enforcement of the law get to decide its harm. They get to choose which laws to challenge. Systems are in place to handle those challenges and when they are decided public officials must follow those rulings or not. That is what this case is all about. A public official denying the legal challenge requiring her to do her job. Want other laws enforced- legally challenge the fact they aren't.
> 
> I gain no joy from this woman being behind bars. I am happy that those denied their full citizenship by her will have to wait no longer.


I explained, in a subsequent post, that I misspoke and meant the law is often ignored. 

To your other points, I am not speaking of discretion of enforcement, as much as enacting an illegal law that conflicts with Federal law. resulting, sometimes, in the death of citizens. I am speaking of ignoring Federal Court orders. I am speaking of unequal justice. I am speaking of emotional enforcement rather than lawful enforcement.


----------



## Farmerga

arabian knight said:


>


Exactly!!! The same thing is happening in D.C.. They both ignore court rulings that they didn't agree with. The only difference is that the Left and the Media support one, but, not the other. We don't see the Sheriff in jail for contempt of court, do we?


----------



## no really

I haven't really kept up with this that well, but just heard the judge's attempt to let her keep her job. He basically told her she would stay out of jail if she would not order her deputy clerks to not issue licenses. Why would that be a problem for her?


----------



## Farmerga

no really said:


> I haven't really kept up with this that well, but just heard the judge's attempt to let her keep her job. He basically told her she would stay out of jail if she would not order her deputy clerks to not issue licenses. Why would that be a problem for her?


 From what I understand, her signature is pre-printed on the document and she doesn't want to have her name linked with a gay marriage.


----------



## no really

Farmerga said:


> From what I understand, her signature is pre-printed on the document and she doesn't want to have her name linked with a gay marriage.


White out works great, let her deputies sign it.


----------



## mmoetc

Farmerga said:


> I explained, in a subsequent post, that I misspoke and meant the law is often ignored.
> 
> To your other points, I am not speaking of discretion of enforcement, as much as enacting an illegal law that conflicts with Federal law. resulting, sometimes, in the death of citizens. I am speaking of ignoring Federal Court orders. I am speaking of unequal justice. I am speaking of emotional enforcement rather than lawful enforcement.


I was typing as you posted. Your clarification is noted and accepted. Thanks. 

You should be rejoicing that this woman is I jail. She had done everything you think should be punishable. She ignored federal law and defied court orders. She worked for the unequal justice of not treating everyone who walked through the door of her office the same. She was enforcing her own emotional law rather than enforcing the law.

Laws that conflict with federal law aren't neccessarily illegal. State and local law enforcement aren't charged with enforcing federal law. A local law stating that they won't arrest someone for lacking proper paperwork is different than a law stopping federal agents from doing so. One isn't illegal, one is. You'll have to cite your specific cases before I can discuss this further as arguing against hypotheticals is non productive.


----------



## wannabfarmer

i'm not saying her views are wrong in any way because they are her views but if i am at a job and they make changes that drastically change my work environment i would either find a happy medium or start looking for another job that fits my views. i bet her kids (if any) still went to school when they stopped saying the pledge because of the word God. i believe why she is really do this is that she looks like she is starting to come into her retirement planning years and doesnt want to give up her tenure and knows it will be difficult for her to find a new job as its harder to find a job the older you get. either way she feels its a win win for her. supporters of her will pay her fines she gets and she will serve her jail time if she gets any and when she is out those same supporters will reach out and offer her a great job for standing up to big brother.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Agriculture said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your point, however few of those of us who are happy that this woman is getting what she deserves are out there actively denying people's rights and forcing our personal beliefs on them. We're also not ignoring a judge's ruling on the matter which orders us personally to comply. I agree that few of these armchair christians who like to preach their drivel would be willing to take a stand as she did, yet I'm glad that she did, to set a good example for the rest of them that *their time is past and their nonsense will no longer be tolerated by thinking people.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> That sounds an awful lot like you would advocate the *denial of freedom of religion.* Would not what you describe be forcing your personal belief on others?
> 
> 
> 
> No one has denied her "freedom of religion".
> She is free to believe and act any way she sees fit *as long as* it doesn't affect her job performance.
> 
> She cannot force others to obey her rules when they are based on her religion.
> 
> This isn't rocket science, and it shouldn't have to be repeated endlessly.
> 
> If she wants total "freedom of religion" she will need to resign her position
Click to expand...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> (insert silly pictures here)


Your'e comparing totally different scenarios in which one is disobeying laws and and the other is following the laws. 

You didn't really think that one through, since a Sheriff has the *legal* authority to deny permits.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Exactly!!! The same thing is happening in D.C.. They both ignore court rulings that they didn't agree with. The only difference is that the Left and the Media support one, but, not the other. We don't see the Sheriff in jail for contempt of court, do we?


It says a "court order *ALLOWING* their issue"
Not "requiring" nor "ordering".

Unless the permit laws say "SHALL ISSUE", it's still up to the Sheriff's discretion.

If you want to use such examples, you need to find all the details, and not rely on just the silly pictures that often don't give the truth


----------



## where I want to

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/muslim-flight-attendant-expressjet-airlines-alcohol/

Although there are some major differences, this is a case that some of the same arguments can be checked for validity

In this case, a Muslim woman was suspended for refusing to supply alcohol as a part of her job based on religious objections. 
Now she is not a public employee and that makes a big difference due to the power government has. Although once trapped on an airplane, drinkers are pretty powerless to object effectively anyway.
But the basic argument is similar in that she is objecting based on religion to a typical duty of her work. It is more like the baker's arguments. Her refusal is demeaning to those who do not believe in her values, she is not required to drink it herself so it is not strickly a personal issue of teatotalling, she is objecting to any personal involvement in what others do. 
BTW I doubt whether, despite her allegations, her coworkers were thrilled to take on extra work based on her choice.
But I find that my belief in this case is similar to my belief with this clerk- that she has a perfect right to adhere to her religion but that she can not demand that others carry this burden for her. So as an employee, she has no right, unlike the self employed, decide what duties are assigned to whom. She needs to decide whether she personally can do this and if she can't, she needs to go. 
Although I do have more sympathy for the clerk, who had the job changed on her rather than, as the flight attendant, who just decided she would no longer comply.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

where I want to said:


> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/muslim-flight-attendant-expressjet-airlines-alcohol/
> 
> Although there are some major differences, this is a case that some of the same arguments can be checked for validity
> 
> In this case, a Muslim woman was suspended for refusing to supply alcohol as a part of her job based on religious objections.
> Now she is not a public employee and that makes a big difference due to the power government has. Although once trapped on an airplane, drinkers are pretty powerless to object effectively anyway.
> But the basic argument is similar in that she is objecting based on religion to a typical duty of her work. It is more like the baker's arguments. Her refusal is demeaning to those who do not believe in her values, she is not required to drink it herself so it is not strickly a personal issue of teatotalling, she is objecting to any personal involvement in what others do.
> BTW I doubt whether, despite her allegations, her coworkers were thrilled to take on extra work based on her choice.
> But I find that my belief in this case is similar to my belief with this clerk- that she has a perfect right to adhere to her religion but that she can not demand that others carry this burden for her. So as an employee, she has no right, unlike the self employed, decide what duties are assigned to whom. She needs to decide whether she personally can do this and if she can't, she needs to go.
> Although I do have more sympathy for the clerk, *who had the job changed on her *rather than, as the flight attendant, who just decided she would no longer comply.


Nothing changed about the clerk's job.

It's exactly the same for each couple.

She gives them the forms to fill out, and takes their money.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> It says a "court order *ALLOWING* their issue"
> Not "requiring" nor "ordering".
> 
> Unless the permit laws say "SHALL ISSUE", it's still up to the Sheriff's discretion.
> 
> If you want to use such examples, you need to find all the details, and not rely on just the silly pictures that often don't give the truth


 In actuality there is no legal basis for any gun control laws, so, any sheriff who denies that right to lawful citizens is in violation of the Constitution.


----------



## Farmerga

Bearfootfarm said:


> Farmerga said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one has denied her "freedom of religion".
> She is free to believe and act any way she sees fit *as long as* it doesn't affect her job performance.
> 
> She cannot force others to obey her rules when they are based on her religion.
> 
> This isn't rocket science, and it shouldn't have to be repeated endlessly.
> 
> If she wants total "freedom of religion" she will need to resign her position
> 
> 
> 
> You see, I wasn't speaking about the clerk, but rather, the post written by Agriculture. Perhaps you should read posts prior to replying, rather than relying on emotion and pre-conceived notions.
Click to expand...


----------



## Nevada

Marriage licenses issued today in Rowan County have no signature.

_As the county clerk, Kim Davis' signature usually appears on marriage licenses, but since she is jailed, her deputy clerks are handing out licenses with no signature._
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/l...esign-33532684

The licenses may not be valid.
_
Bunning was asked during Davis' contempt hearing Thursday about the licenses being valid if Davis refuses to authorize them. He said it was up to the gay couples to take that chance._


----------



## susieneddy

someone at that office needs to sign them or they all should go to jail


----------



## Nevada

susieneddy said:


> someone at that office needs to sign them or they all should go to jail


I don't know that the deputy clerks can sign licenses unless the clerk delegates her authority to the deputies, but I doubt she'll do that.


----------



## Farmerga

mmoetc said:


> I was typing as you posted. Your clarification is noted and accepted. Thanks.
> 
> *You should be rejoicing that this woman is I jail. She had done everything you think should be punishable.* She ignored federal law and defied court orders. She worked for the unequal justice of not treating everyone who walked through the door of her office the same. She was enforcing her own emotional law rather than enforcing the law.
> 
> Laws that conflict with federal law aren't neccessarily illegal. State and local law enforcement aren't charged with enforcing federal law. A local law stating that they won't arrest someone for lacking proper paperwork is different than a law stopping federal agents from doing so. One isn't illegal, one is. You'll have to cite your specific cases before I can discuss this further as arguing against hypotheticals is non productive.


 
You see, I didn't say that. All I said was that it was wrong to rejoice in the jailing of this woman without faulting the numerous cases of other jurisdictions ignoring Federal law and court orders. (some of which I happen to agree with.) And it most definitely is the same thing. The laws of Kentucky didn't change, they were nullified, I believe wrongly, (I believe it is a state matter and the SCOTUS overstepped, again) by 5 justices on the SCOTUS. The justification, put forth by the 5 justices, is a joke of an opinion, largely reliant on emotion rather than Constitutional law.


----------



## Farmerga

Nevada said:


> Marriage licenses issued today in Rowan County have no signature.
> 
> _As the county clerk, Kim Davis' signature usually appears on marriage licenses, but since she is jailed, her deputy clerks are handing out licenses with no signature._
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/l...esign-33532684
> 
> The licenses may not be valid.
> _
> Bunning was asked during Davis' contempt hearing Thursday about the licenses being valid if Davis refuses to authorize them. He said it was up to the gay couples to take that chance._


 Or, they could go 30 miles, in any direction, and get a license that is valid.


----------



## mmoetc

where I want to said:


> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/muslim-flight-attendant-expressjet-airlines-alcohol/
> 
> Although there are some major differences, this is a case that some of the same arguments can be checked for validity
> 
> In this case, a Muslim woman was suspended for refusing to supply alcohol as a part of her job based on religious objections.
> Now she is not a public employee and that makes a big difference due to the power government has. Although once trapped on an airplane, drinkers are pretty powerless to object effectively anyway.
> But the basic argument is similar in that she is objecting based on religion to a typical duty of her work. It is more like the baker's arguments. Her refusal is demeaning to those who do not believe in her values, she is not required to drink it herself so it is not strickly a personal issue of teatotalling, she is objecting to any personal involvement in what others do.
> BTW I doubt whether, despite her allegations, her coworkers were thrilled to take on extra work based on her choice.
> But I find that my belief in this case is similar to my belief with this clerk- that she has a perfect right to adhere to her religion but that she can not demand that others carry this burden for her. So as an employee, she has no right, unlike the self employed, decide what duties are assigned to whom. She needs to decide whether she personally can do this and if she can't, she needs to go.
> Although I do have more sympathy for the clerk, who had the job changed on her rather than, as the flight attendant, who just decided she would no longer comply.


One of the biggest differences is that there is no indication she wasn't allowing anyone on the plane to drink, just that she would not serve it. She didn't appear to be stopping other airline personnel from serving alcohol unlike the clerk who would not allow anyone in her office to issue a license. We also don't know what, if any accomodations, the airline was willing to make to respect this woman's beliefs and operate successfully. I'll agree that if some accomadation cannot be made that doesn't affect the safe and profitable operation of the airline she needs to go. But every effort should be made to work out a solution both sides can live with.


----------



## susieneddy

Farmerga said:


> Or, they could go 30 miles, in any direction, and get a license that is valid.


they shouldn't have to esp. if they live in that county


----------



## Nevada

Farmerga said:


> Or, they could go 30 miles, in any direction, and get a license that is valid.


And I suppose that Rosa Parks could have gone to some other city where riding in the front of the bus was acceptable.


----------



## Patchouli




----------



## MoonRiver

I think either the county or the State of Kentucky is at fault. There has to be an effort to provide reasonable accommodation for the clerk's religious beliefs. She didn't give up any rights when she went to work for the government. If there is a way that she can not be involved with the granting of marriage licenses, but still do all other aspects of her job, I think the employer has an obligation to find that solution.

Right now, it appears that the State of Kentucky requires her signature on marriage licenses for the county. Simply having the deputy clerks issue the licenses appears to pose a problem, because the clerk's name and signature are required on the licenses. There is the possibility that the licenses issued today are not valid.

Just as a private employer has an obligation to try to accommodate the religious beliefs of its employees, so does the State of Kentucky.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> In actuality there is *no legal basis* for any gun control laws, so, any sheriff who denies that right to lawful citizens is *in violation of the Constitution*.


Yeah, I've heard all that rhetoric countless times.

The Supreme Court has already shot down your opinion

Now let's get back to reality and actual statutes, since you know that's what applies


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> Simply having the deputy clerks issue the licenses appears to pose a problem, because the clerk's name and signature are required on the licenses. There is the possibility that the licenses issued today are not valid.


It could be that simple, if the clerk was willing to delegate her authority to the deputy clerks. I'm wondering why she doesn't do that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Bearfootfarm said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see, *I wasn't speaking about the clerk*, but rather, the post written by Agriculture. Perhaps *you should read* posts prior to replying, rather than relying on emotion and pre-conceived notions.
> 
> 
> 
> But Agriculture *was* speaking of her and those like her, so your reply had to be "about her" and anyone else who tries to force their religion on others:
> 
> Agriculture:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that few of these *armchair christians* who like to preach their drivel would be willing to take a stand as *she* did, yet I'm glad that *she* did, to set a good example for the rest of *them* that their time is past and their nonsense will no longer be tolerated by thinking people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, no one is denying anyone their "freedom of religion" by expecting them to simply do their jobs, so he couldn't have been advocating that principle
Click to expand...


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Farmerga said:


> Or, they could go 30 miles, in any direction, and get a license that is valid.


They don't have to according to the law


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> It could be that simple, if the clerk was willing to delegate her authority to the deputy clerks. I'm wondering why she doesn't do that.


I believe because it is state law. That's why I'm saying I think the State of Kentucky is the one at fault.


----------



## wr

Farmerga said:


> Or, they could go 30 miles, in any direction, and get a license that is valid.


That works great until the clerk in the next county decides that a precedent has set and they can refuse to do some aspect of their job. 

Would it be equally as acceptable to you if this was a Pagan refusing to provide marriage licenses to Christians and a Christian needed to just drive another 30 miles for a service provided locally?


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> I believe because it is state law. That's why I'm saying I think the State of Kentucky is the one at fault.


On your post I looked it up. According to KY statute 402.100,1(c) deputy clerks are authorized to sign marriage licenses by law.

******
_(c) The date and place the license is issued, and
the signature of the county clerk 
*or deputy clerk* issuing the license_
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36475


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> On your post I looked it up. According to KY statute 402.100,1(c) deputy clerks are authorized to sign marriage licenses by law.
> 
> ******
> _(c) The date and place the license is issued, and
> the signature of the county clerk
> *or deputy clerk* issuing the license_
> http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36475


That's only for the document that says the certificate was recorded.

Sec 1a which has to do with the marriage license itself, says the county clerk.

She has said that if the Kentucky legislature changed the law and authorized a deputy to sign the marriage certificate, she was OK with it. The problem is the legislature is not in session.


----------



## Patchouli

The Judge offered to do exactly what Moonriver said: 


> Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis was given a second chance: She didn't have to issue same-sex marriage licenses herself; she merely had to agree not to interfere with five deputy clerks who had told the federal judge they'd issue them in her stead. But Davis' lawyer told U.S. District Judge David Bunning that his client would not allow her deputies to issue the licenses. Davis was not in the courtroom for the second session. She was in a hallway outside.
> "We cannot represent to the court that she would allow licenses to be issued," attorney Mat Staver said.


http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/03/p...ex-marriage-kim-davis/index.html?eref=edition


----------



## wiscto

I want to know why people are so defensive of this woman. If there was one clear and defining purpose of this country that was never really in doubt, it was to create a system where no one in a position of government authority had the right to use that authority as a weapon for their faith. This woman is a PUBLIC SERVANT. If she refuses to do her duty, and she refuses to resign her post for personal reasons, she should be fired, removed from office, and blackballed from public service. And that should be the end of it. Watching this woman banter with citizens, telling them they're going to be judged, is disgusting.

And this isn't anti-Christianity. There are Christians who believe that they can do their duty to civilization without harming their own positions in heaven. What was it Jesus said? You catch more flies with honey? This is nothing more than one woman using her position to show everyone how disgusted and offended she is. She's a tyrant, and she should be barred from public office for eternity. There can't be anything less American or less CHRISTIAN than standing above all others and trying to punish them for their sins on God's behalf. 

Humility. This country needs a huge dose of it. Worry about your own ***dam* souls.


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> That's only for the document that says the certificate was recorded.


I don't think so. The section of law specifically says marriage license.

******
The form shall consist of:
(1)
*A marriage license* which provides for the entering of:
(c)
The date and place the license is issued, and
the signature of the county clerk 
*or deputy clerk* issuing the license
******

Then it goes on to specify other documents that have to be included in the form packet. I don't see how that law can be interpreted to mean anything else. It's pretty clear that the law authorizes deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> That's only for the document that says the certificate was recorded.
> 
> Sec 1a which has to do with the marriage license itself, says the county clerk.
> 
> She has said that if the Kentucky legislature changed the law and authorized a deputy to sign the marriage certificate, she was OK with it. The problem is the legislature is not in session.


Look down a couple lines where it says says county clerk *or* deputy.


----------



## Nevada

Patchouli said:


> But Davis' lawyer told U.S. District Judge David Bunning that his client would not allow her deputies to issue the licenses.


From my reading of the law, the legislature has authorized deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses. I think it's beyond her authority to not allow her deputies to issue licenses.


----------



## wiscto

Nevada said:


> From my reading of the law, the legislature has authorized deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses. I think it's beyond her authority to not allow her deputies to issue licenses.


Well beyond her authority. She's basically a cashier, she just doesn't know it.


----------



## Jim Bunton

InTownForNow said:


> Elected worker or not, govt employee or not, she cannot constitutionally or rationally be forced to abandon her religious beliefs when she clocks in. Govt workers have 1st amendment rights too. This sad day will open the door to a new America mark my words.
> 
> People arent used to seeing bold Christians with enough guts and faith to not hand over their convictions the moment someone objects to getting their feelngs hurt. I can only hope that they see more and more christians like her as the ball of tyranny starts down this slippery slope.


How is doing her job abandoning her religious beliefs? If she signs the license it only acknowledges that all legal requirements have been met to qualify for a marriage license. She doesn't have the power to allow, or deny a person the right to marry. She seems to be confusing herself for God. No that isn't quite right. God does not stop gays from marrying.

Jim


----------



## wiscto

As a GOVERNMENT employee she has no right to force others to abandon _their_ beliefs. She either steps aside, or she deserves what she's got coming to her. How the hell can someone who says she wants "religious freedom" believe that someone in a government position can pick and choose who she does her job for based on her religious beliefs.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> I don't think so. The section of law specifically says marriage license.
> 
> ******
> The form shall consist of:
> (1)
> *A marriage license* which provides for the entering of:
> (c)
> The date and place the license is issued, and
> the signature of the county clerk
> *or deputy clerk* issuing the license
> ******
> 
> Then it goes on to specify other documents that have to be included in the form packet. I don't see how that law can be interpreted to mean anything else. It's pretty clear that the law authorizes deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses.


It says the County Clerk, not deputy clerk. I'm thinking the clerk has her name filled in and signs several licenses. When a deputy needs one, they just grab one that the clerk has already signed. Then the deputies give them out and enters date and time license was issued and signs it. 


> (a)
> An *authorization statement of the county clerk* issuing the license for any person or religious society authorized to perform marriage ceremonies to unite in marriage the persons named;


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> It says the County Clerk, not deputy clerk. I'm thinking the clerk has her name filled in and signs several licenses. When a deputy needs one, they just grab one that the clerk has already signed. Then the deputies give them out and enters date and time license was issued and signs it.


The law is clear here.... County clerk or deputy clerk can sign both marriage license and certificate of marriage. The clerk is not required to sign either one.


----------



## MoonRiver

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The law is clear here.... County clerk or deputy clerk can sign both marriag e license and certificate of marriage. The clerk is not required to sign either one.


You might want to reread. The clerk has to authorize and she ain't authorizing.


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> You might want to reread. The clerk has to authorize and she ain't authorizing.


Perhaps you are referring to this passage.

_(a) An authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license for any person or religious society authorized to perform marriage ceremonies to unite in marriage the persons named_

That's not for issuing the license, it's only a statement that authorized clergy can solemnize that marriage. That will be a statement printed on the license. Since part "c" of that law specifically says that a deputy clerk can issue a license, I'm sure that a deputy clerk can do it.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> Perhaps you are referring to this passage.
> 
> _(a) An authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license for any person or religious society authorized to perform marriage ceremonies to unite in marriage the persons named_
> 
> That's not for issuing the license, it's only a statement that authorized clergy can solemnize that marriage. That will be a statement printed on the license. Since part "c" of that law specifically says that a deputy clerk can issue a license, I'm sure that a deputy clerk can do it.


I'm just going by what it says. If they meant clerk or deputy clerk they would have said that.


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> I'm just going by what it says. If they meant clerk or deputy clerk they would have said that.


Here's a license that was issued by Rowan County in 2009 while Kim Davis' mother was clerk. It's Kim Davis' marriage license. It was issued by a deputy clerk, but it also bears the clerk's name.

Note that the clerk didn't sign the license at all. The license only states that it was issued in her office. The deputy clerk signed (initialed) the license.


----------



## wiscto

The _only_ reason these clerks exist is to make sure all of the proper forms and obligations have been seen to according to the laws and regulations. It isn't her job to determine what is lawful. She follows the procedures laid out for her, nothing more. The only one violating the law is her. She is a PUBLIC SERVANT. If she can't fulfill her duties as a PUBLIC SERVANT, she should show herself the door. I'll use the line so many of you like to use around here. If she works hard and develops a skill...she can always find a job where the PUBLIC doesn't PAY HER WAGES.

The only one violating protected rights is her. Those people aren't violating her religious rights simply by not believing in her religion and doing what it is now lawful for them to do. They all have the right to not believe. They all have a right to a government that does not force them to live according to her beliefs. And their disbelief is not a religion unto itself, it is simply their freedom to do what she doesn't want them to do that bothers this woman. Nothing more. If she wants to use the government as a whip, she should put a portrait of Stalin over her desk.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> I'm just going by what it says. If they meant clerk or deputy clerk they would have said that.


You are going by the part that says what you want it to. They do day clerk or deputy clerk in line "c". Since they do say it I am inclined to believe they meant it.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> You might want to reread. The clerk has to authorize and she ain't authorizing.


What does the words, "clerk or deputy clerk" mean where you live? Here in Kentucky it means either one.... The clerk or the deputy clerk. Two separate entries either of which are authorized to issue either of the two documents being dealt with, the marriage license and certificate of marriage.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MoonRiver said:


> That's only for the document that says the certificate was recorded.
> 
> Sec 1a which has to do with the marriage license itself, says the county clerk.
> 
> She has said that if the Kentucky legislature changed the law and authorized a deputy to sign the marriage certificate, she was OK with it.  The problem is the legislature is not in session.


The statute posted talks about the form that has to be used for a "license" and a "certificate", and the spaces provided on the forms
They both say "Clerk or Deputy":

License:


> (c) The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk *or deputy clerk* issuing the license.


The second portion says the Clerk's signature is *required to prove it's been recorded*. It's really not clear if the signature is required before the wedding for the license to be valid. 



> Certificate:
> (d) A signed statement by the *county clerk or a deputy county clerk* of the county
> in which the marriage license was issued that the marriage certificate was
> recorded.


If the licenses being issued now are truly not valid, it would seem they are still in contempt



> I'm just going by what it says. If they meant clerk or deputy clerk they would have said that.


The portion you're quoting is not for a common marriage license.
It's for the "license" to *PERFORM* weddings


----------



## MoonRiver

Yvonne's hubby said:


> What does the words, clerk or deputy clerk mean where you live. Here in Kentucky it means either one.... The clerk or the deputy. Two separate entries.


1a says clerk. It doesn't say or deputy clerk.

In my experience, government forms are to be taken literally. Just because it says or deputy in 1c doesn't mean it applies to 1a.

The question comes down to, what does 1a mean. It is not clear looking at the marriage license form.


----------



## MoonRiver

Bearfootfarm said:


> The statute posted talks about the form that has to be used for a "license" and a "ceartificate", and the spaces provided on the forms
> They both say "Clerk or Deputy":
> 
> License:
> 
> The second portion says the Clerk's signature is *required to prove it's been recorded*. It's really not clear if the signature is required before the wedding for the license to be valid.
> 
> If the licenses being issued now are truly not valid, it would seem they are still in contempt


1a. 

Her attorney informed the judge that the certificates might not be valid without her signature. The judge said he would leave it up to the couple applying for the license to determine if they wanted to risk it.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> 1a says clerk. It doesn't say or deputy clerk.
> 
> In my experience, government forms are to be taken literally. Just because it says or deputy in 1c doesn't mean it applies to 1a.
> 
> The question comes down to, what does 1a mean. It is not clear looking at the marriage license form.


It is very clear in 1c... Clerk or deputy clerk can sign. A b c all refer to the same form.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> 1a says clerk. It doesn't say or deputy clerk.
> 
> In my experience, government forms are to be taken literally. Just because it says or deputy in 1c doesn't mean it applies to 1a.
> 
> The question comes down to, what does 1a mean. It is not clear looking at the marriage license form.


1a is referring to a clerks authorization statement that has to appear on the license form. As long as that statement is on the printed form, it does not require anyone's signature. The form can be signed as authorized in line 1c by the clerk or the deputy clerk. Look at the top of the marriage license a few posts up.... The authorization statement is in bold near the top. No signature on it, nor a place for a signature.


----------



## kuriakos

Nevada said:


> I don't know about that. What are the chances she'll make $80,000 again during her lifetime?


In jail, she doesn't need money. But maybe she is envisioning a lucrative life after jail of touring the country in a bus with Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber. Or writing a book (really having one ghostwritten) and selling a million copies to us bitter clingers. Or maybe she's just tired of the current husband but she can't divorce him because of her new faith so this is a way out.


----------



## MoonRiver

It looks like they are saying 1a makes the marriage licenses void.


> Hours later, however, attorneys for Davis said the marriage licenses issued by her office Friday were void because only Davis has the authority to authorize a marriage license and she refuses to do so.
> "They are not being issued under the authority of the Rowan County clerk's office. They are not worth the paper that they are written on," said attorney Mat Staver after meeting with Davis in the Carter County jail in Grayson.
> Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins has previously dismissed that argument, saying deputy clerks can issue valid marriage licenses without the approval of their boss. kentucky


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins has previously dismissed that argument, saying *deputy clerks can issue valid marriage licenses without the approval of their boss*.


Rowan County Attorney interprets the law the same way I do. I'm confident that the deputy clerks are acting within their lawful authority by issuing licenses.

As county clerk, Kim Davis needs to read the law again.


----------



## arabian knight

*Oregon Judge Refuses To Perform Same-Sex Marriages*


> A circuit court judge in Oregon's Marion County *is refusing to perform same-sex marriages, claiming doing so would violate his First Amendment rights.*
> 
> Judge Vance D. Day, who has served in Oregon's Third Judicial District since 2011, has never married an LGBT couple, and has stopped performing marriages all together. Day says performing gay marriages would go against his religious beliefs, *and has reportedly instructed his clerks to refer gay couples to other judges.*


 And he is saying Go To Some Other Judge.
And also these two in KY SHOULD have been TOLD the Same thing. Go see someone else Simple as that.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oregon-judge-refuses-to-perform-same-sex-marriages/ar-AAdXSg5?li=AA4ZnC


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> Rowan County Attorney interprets the law the same way I do. I'm confident that the deputy clerks are acting within their lawful authority by issuing licenses.
> 
> As county clerk, Kim Davis needs to read the law again.


It might be that as an elected official, she likely has authority above and beyond what a deputy clerk has. I have no dog in this fight, but I do think the State of Kentucky should be able to accommodate Davis. 

Not being a lawyer, I might be wrong, but logic says her fight is with the state, not the federal government. Or maybe she sues Rowan County and the state. Or maybe there is a compromise to be reached, but I hope her 1st Amendment religious rights are not abused.


----------



## arabian knight

*Tenn. judge refuses to grant straight couple a divorce because â¦ gay marriage*


> Last week, a Tenn. judge refused to grant a straight couple a divorce because the U.S. Supreme Court allowed gay marriage.
> 
> Many readers may be scratching their heads right now, wondering how the legalization of gay marriage could possibly disrupt straight divorce proceedings.
> 
> But spare a moment to hear out Jeffrey M. Atherton, if for no other reason than that the judgeâs argument is an increasingly common one as conservatives across the country* claim the Supreme Court overreached with its June 26 watershed ruling*.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tenn-judge-refuses-to-grant-straight-couple-a-divorce-because-â¦-gay-marriage/ar-AAdXgz7?li=AA4ZnC


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MoonRiver said:


> 1a.
> 
> *Her attorney informed the judge* that the certificates might not be valid without her signature. The judge said he would leave it up to the couple applying for the license to determine if they wanted to risk it.


Who cares what her attorney said?
They can say anything they like, but they are still the losing side in this case.

The statute is clear (to most people)

The "statement" you keep referring to is *printed on the form*, and requires no action by the actual Clerk.

Look at Nevada's post #324, and read the statement on the pictured form, just below the words "Commonwealth of Kentucky", and before "Bride's Name"

That is the "Clerks statement of Authority to Marry"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> *Oregon Judge Refuses To Perform Same-Sex Marriages*
> 
> And he is saying Go To Some Other Judge.
> And also these two in KY SHOULD have been TOLD the Same thing. Go see someone else Simple as that.
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oregon-judge-refuses-to-perform-same-sex-marriages/ar-AAdXSg5?li=AA4ZnC


Judges nor Ministers have any obligation to perform weddings, unlike the Clerk who MUST issue the license. 

You will note he is no longer performing weddings for anyone, which is why people are being referred to other Judges.

You should think about these things more before you just copy and paste the parroted arguments

The Judge who wouldn't grant the divorce is wrong, since he* does* have an obligation to follow the law in cases he handles. 

He cannot refuse based on his own personal reasons.

This stuff really isn't complicated


----------



## greg273

arabian knight said:


> And also these two in KY SHOULD have been TOLD the Same thing. Go see someone else Simple as that.


 How about the next time you go to get your drivers license renewed, the lady at the desk tells you its against her religion to give a license to a guy who drives around with a horse in his car. You can just 'go see someone else'. Would you think that was ok? Or do you think maybe she should just do her job as the law states?


----------



## arabian knight




----------



## Evons hubby

The push for whose liberty? Everyone's or just the bigots?


----------



## wiscto




----------



## MoonRiver

greg273 said:


> How about the next time you go to get your drivers license renewed, the lady at the desk tells you its against her religion to give a license to a guy who drives around with a horse in his car. You can just 'go see someone else'. Would you think that was ok? Or do you think maybe she should just do her job as the law states?


What religion prohibits a horse in a car? To apply the 1st Amendment, it has to be a generally recognized religion.

The state has the responsibility to provide the service, but the individual may invoke her 1st Amendment rights. I keep seeing court cases where Muslims win 1st Amendment cases so why shouldn't Christians?


----------



## wiscto

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The push for whose liberty? Everyone's or just the bigots?


Her liberty to use a government position, paid for by everyone, to unconstitutionally violate others' legally recognized liberty. All these poor downtrodden Christians want is to be able to hold public office, so that they can dictate how the rest of us live our lives.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> What religion prohibits a horse in a car? To apply the 1st Amendment, it has to be a generally recognized religion.
> 
> The state has the responsibility to provide the service, but the individual may invoke her 1st Amendment rights. I keep seeing court cases where Muslims win 1st Amendment cases so why shouldn't Christians?


Ummm which part of the first amendment puts any qualifiers upon which religions can be practiced freely? I missed that part when I read my copy.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> What religion prohibits a horse in a car? To apply the 1st Amendment, it has to be a generally recognized religion.
> 
> The state has the responsibility to provide the service, but the individual may invoke her 1st Amendment rights. I keep seeing court cases where Muslims win 1st Amendment cases so why shouldn't Christians?


She is free to practice her religion, no one is denying her that right. What she cannot do is impose her beliefs upon others.


----------



## wr

MoonRiver said:


> What religion prohibits a horse in a car? To apply the 1st Amendment, it has to be a generally recognized religion.
> 
> The state has the responsibility to provide the service, but the individual may invoke her 1st Amendment rights. I keep seeing court cases where Muslims win 1st Amendment cases so why shouldn't Christians?



Would it be equally as okay if that same Christian clerk refused to issue marriage licenses to a Pagan couple?


----------



## Evons hubby

wr said:


> Would it be equally as okay if that same Christian clerk refused to issue marriage licenses to a Pagan couple?


Yep that would be equally ok.... As in not ok at the same level.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MoonRiver said:


> What religion prohibits a horse in a car? To apply the 1st Amendment, it has to be a generally recognized religion.
> 
> The state has the responsibility to provide the service, but the individual may invoke her 1st Amendment rights. *I keep seeing court cases where Muslims win 1st Amendment cases *so why shouldn't Christians?


Have you seen them win any identical to this one?
If not, it really means nothing at all.

She has no "First Amendment right" to force others to adhere to her beliefs when it comes to doing her job.


----------



## farmrbrown

I can't find an *exact* case - a muslim clerk of court, duly elected, in a state where the marriage application can only be issued by the clerk, and where the clerk refused due to her Muslim beliefs.

However, an 8-1 ruling written by Scalia has some interesting points in favor of this stance.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-86_p86b.pdf





Thus, the rule for disparate-treatment claims based on a 
failure to accommodate a religious practice is straightfor- 
ward: An employer may not make an applicant&#8217;s religious 
practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment 
decisions. For example, suppose that an employer thinks 
(though he does not know for certain) that a job applicant 
may be an orthodox Jew who will observe the Sabbath, 
and thus be unable to work on Saturdays. If the applicant 
actually requires an accommodation of that religious 
practice, and the employer&#8217;s desire to avoid the prospec- 
tive accommodation is a motivating factor in his decision, 
the employer violates Title VII.

Abercrombie argues in the alternative that a claim 
based on a failure to accommodate an applicant&#8217;s religious 
practice must be raised as a disparate-impact claim, not a 
disparate-treatment claim. *We think not. That might 
have been true if Congress had limited the meaning of 
&#8220;religion&#8221; in Title VII to religious belief&#8212;so that discrimi- 
nating against a particular religious practice would not be 
disparate treatment though it might have disparate im- 
pact. In fact, however, Congress defined &#8220;religion,&#8221; for 
Title VII&#8217;s purposes, as &#8220;includ[ing] all aspects of religious 
observance and practice, as well as belief.&#8221; 42 U. S. C. 
Â§2000e(j). Thus, religious practice is one of the protected 
characteristics that cannot be accorded disparate treat- 
ment and must be accommodated. *
Nor does the statute limit disparate-treatment claims to 
only those employer policies that treat religious practices 
less favorably than similar secular practices. Abercrom- 
bie&#8217;s argument that a neutral policy cannot constitute 
&#8220;intentional discrimination&#8221; may make sense in other 
contexts. *But Title VII does not demand mere neutrality 
with regard to religious practices&#8212;that they be treated no 
worse than other practices. Rather, it gives them favored
treatment, affirmatively obligating employers not &#8220;to fail 
or refuse to hire or discharge any individual . . . because of 
such individual&#8217;s&#8221; &#8220;religious observance and practice.&#8221;* An 
employer is surely entitled to have, for example, a no- 
headwear policy as an ordinary matter. But when an 
applicant requires an accommodation as an &#8220;aspec[t] of 
religious . . . practice,&#8221; it is no response that the sub- 
sequent &#8220;fail[ure] . . . to hire&#8221; was due to an otherwise- 
neutral policy. Title VII requires otherwise-neutral 
policies to give way to the need for an accommodation. 
* * * 
The Tenth Circuit misinterpreted Title VII&#8217;s require- 
ments in granting summary judgment. We reverse its 
judgment and remand the case for further consideration 
consistent with this opinion. 
It is so ordered.


----------



## wiscto

McDonald's is an employer, they have no power over me or my rights, I don't work for them. GM is an employer. They have no power over me or my rights. The government wields power over everyone in their jurisdiction. The government cannot be allowed to discriminate based on religious grounds. Anyone who, acting on behalf of the government, discriminates based on religious grounds is so blatantly un-American that they don't even deserve to BE in government any longer. This whole jail thing is nonsense. Walk her out the door. This was never about her as an employee. This is about what right an individual in government is allowed to do. She is not allowed to do this, because the government is not allowed to break its own laws and discriminate against individuals on religious grounds, only on legal grounds, and gay marriage is now legal.


----------



## farmrbrown

I believe this was the reason the judge offered her an alternative of someone else issuing the licenses, to accommodate her religious beliefs.


http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm


I think you'll find some amusing contradictions to the law in your post.







wiscto said:


> McDonald's is an employer, they have no power over me or my rights, I don't work for them. GM is an employer. They have no power over me or my rights. The government wields power over everyone in their jurisdiction. *The government cannot be allowed to discriminate based on religious grounds.* Anyone who, acting on behalf of the government, discriminates based on religious grounds is so blatantly un-American that they don't even deserve to BE in government any longer. This whole jail thing is nonsense. Walk her out the door. * This was never about her as an employee. * This is about what right an individual in government is allowed to do. She is not allowed to do this, because the *government is not allowed to break its own laws and discriminate against individuals on religious grounds,* only on legal grounds, and gay marriage is now legal.


----------



## Agriculture

What amuses me about the mini movement by her fellow religious zealots to support her is that they don't even realize that they have already lost. What are they going to gain? She will get out of jail eventually, with or without them. She will also lose her job, elected or not, her choice or not. There is no way that in today's climate any judge is going to uphold her position, so where will be their victory? She also doesn't get that her actions have only drawn more attention to and garnered more support for gay marriage. I still am not in favor of it, but since it doesn't affect me I support those whose rights she has denied with her abuse of power in the name of some god more than I support her bigotry. And the son should be in jail too.


----------



## MoonRiver

wr said:


> Would it be equally as okay if that same Christian clerk refused to issue marriage licenses to a Pagan couple?


You tell me. Is there anything in the Bible about prohibiting marriage of a Pagan couple?


----------



## stanb999

As a libertarian atheist I just don't see the the argument on both sides. It's frankly ridiculous.

So if the building inspector refuses to approve a new church because they are Muslim it's all good? It would be against his religion to allow an expansion of Christianity after all.

Shouldn't people who love each other just ... love with out permission from "the man"?


IMHO, It has nothing to do with the clerk. It's not like she has some greater responsibility in the transaction that checking the paperwork. She has an aversion to see two male names on a birth cert in a row? Does she feel that she her self approves the marriages? Like blesses then or something?

Can someone explain with logic where this is anything more than just failing to do your job?

If it's just failing to do your job you should lose your job not go to jail. Can some explain with logic why this woman is in jail.


logic only, no "feelings", "beliefs", or notions,


----------



## MoonRiver

Bearfootfarm said:


> Have you seen them win any identical to this one?
> If not, it really means nothing at all.
> 
> She has no "First Amendment right" to force others to adhere to her beliefs when it comes to doing her job.


If I was in that county and I had an urgency to get married, I would simply go to a different county for the license. So while she may have caused me some aggravation and time, she wouldn't have forced anything on me. Should I have to do that? No, but she didn't stop anyone from getting married as they had another option.

So she didn't stop anyone from being married. She did stop some people from receiving a marriage license in her county, but a license from another county was valid in her county. So anyone that wanted to be married, could have been.


----------



## Raeven

MoonRiver said:


> You tell me. Is there anything in the Bible about prohibiting marriage of a Pagan couple?


We are not governed by the law of the bible. We are governed by the law of the land. The clerk's entire duty is to carry out the law of the land. If she can't do it, she must quit her job.


----------



## Raeven

stanb999 said:


> Shouldn't people who love each other just ... love with out permission from "the man"?
> 
> IMHO, It has nothing to do with the clerk. It's not like she has some greater responsibility in the transaction that checking the paperwork. She has an aversion to see two male names on a birth cert in a row? Does she feel that she her self approves the marriages? Like blesses then or something?
> 
> Can someone explain with logic where this is anything more than just failing to do your job?
> 
> If it's just failing to do your job you should lose your job not go to jail. Can some explain with logic why this woman is in jail.


As to your question about whether people should "just.... love" each other, I'm sure they do. But the legal contract of marriage confers many privileges to which our Supreme Court has ruled all eligible for marriage in this country are entitled. The right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, for example. The right to file a joint tax return. The right of inheritance. These are some of the many legal reasons why people formalize their love relationships with marriage.

As to why the woman is in jail, it's very simple:

a) She is not doing her job.

b) She's elected, so she can't be fired. The state legislature can impeach her but they're not likely to do so. A petition to recall her can be filed, but that is time consuming and even if successful, it won't go on a ballot for a vote until November of 2016.

c) Fining her is ineffective because she won't be paying the fine.

The judge took the only effective avenue available to him.


----------



## just_sawing

One little problem with this. It was a federal judge ruling on a State issue. That is not allowed. A Ky State licenses is a state issue and the federal judge has no authority. If the Ky State law has change their equal marriage law then the State judge would internee. 
If you want to send her to jail then be equal and send Obama to jail for telling the border control to ignore laws. There is no difference. 
We must protect state rights and Marriage is a state issue.
Now before you jump on me for being homophobic or something I would have issued the licenses because it is a state licenses not religious document. I would not perform the ceremony do to my personnel beliefs and would go to jail before I would perform it, but that licenses is nothing but state paper.


----------



## Raeven

just_sawing said:


> One little problem with this. It was a federal judge ruling on a State issue. That is not allowed.


Of course it is. Familiarize yourself with how the legal system works in this country. It's a federal issue. It's a federal law that is being violated. The ACLU filed their case appropriately in a federal court.


----------



## mmoetc

just_sawing said:


> One little problem with this. It was a federal judge ruling on a State issue. That is not allowed. A Ky State licenses is a state issue and the federal judge has no authority. If the Ky State law has change their equal marriage law then the State judge would internee.
> If you want to send her to jail then be equal and send Obama to jail for telling the border control to ignore laws. There is no difference.
> We must protect state rights and Marriage is a state issue.
> Now before you jump on me for being homophobic or something I would have issued the licenses because it is a state licenses not religious document. I would not perform the ceremony do to my personnel beliefs and would go to jail before I would perform it, but that licenses is nothing but state paper.


I believe the case was filed as a violation of the equal protection c&#322;ause of the US constitution making it a Federal case. The focus on gay marriage is a bit of a red herring. The law would be the same if it was a Muslim clerk refusing to issue licenses to sell alcohol, an Orthodox Jew clerk refusing to issue the license for a bar-b-que restaurant because it wants to serve pork, or any of a thousand other examples. In none of these cases is the person acting as an individual. They are acting as an arm of the government and the government is supposed to be religously neutral. It is not, or at least it shouldn't be, the individual's duty to make accomodations for a government employees religous beliefs by driving even one mile out of their way. The government should offer reasonable accomodations to its employees to ensure the public is served. I think its a reasonable accomodation to have others in the department issues and sign the licenses as has been offered and is now being done. In the case of the judge's refusal to officiate at same sex weddings this is what was done. Both party's needs were met with minimal disruption. I have no right to be married by a specific judge but I do have a right to be married by a judge where municipalities offer such service. I don't have the right to a license signed by a specific official, just an appropriate official. I think this woman is being unreasonable in her demands and the judges have all, thus far agreed.


----------



## mmoetc

As an aside, I find it interesting that many of you who rail on a daily basis about every government intrusion and regulation making you life difficult now want to give government agents another tool, their personal religous beliefs, to impose their will on you.


----------



## no really

Decided to see what info I could find on Kim Davis and her job, I was a bit surprised at the salary she received. Interesting read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Davis_(county_clerk)


----------



## MoonRiver

Raeven said:


> We are not governed by the law of the bible. We are governed by the law of the land. The clerk's entire duty is to carry out the law of the land. If she can't do it, she must quit her job.


That's one way of looking at it.


----------



## MoonRiver

This is how North Carolina addressed a related problem. Republican governor vetoed it, but NC House and Senate overrode the veto. 



> The law, which takes effect immediately, allows magistrates, along with assistant and deputy registers of deeds, to refuse to perform a marriage without facing punishment or charges of willfully failing to discharge their duties. Court officials who disclose a religious objection must stop performing all marriages for at least six months. NYT


I'm thinking the reason the Kentucky governor and legislature haven't acted is because the governor is Democrat and the House is controlled by Democrats. This problem could be easily resolved if the legislature acted.


----------



## Raeven

MoonRiver said:


> That's one way of looking at it.


LOL, it's the way of looking at it that is going to prevail.


----------



## arabian knight

Raeven said:


> Of course it is. Familiarize yourself with how the legal system works in this country. It's a federal issue. It's a federal law that is being violated. The ACLU filed their case appropriately in a federal court.


 And THAT is the biggest mistake is taking the aclu into this they should stay AWAY~! And GO AWAY. Some of the worse things in this country has been brought to you by that aclu folks. Bad deal all the way around.


----------



## farmrbrown

Raeven said:


> As to your question about whether people should "just.... love" each other, I'm sure they do. But the legal contract of marriage confers many privileges to which our Supreme Court has ruled all eligible for marriage in this country are entitled. The right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, for example. The right to file a joint tax return. The right of inheritance. These are some of the many legal reasons why people formalize their love relationships with marriage.
> 
> As to why the woman is in jail, it's very simple:
> 
> a) She is not doing her job.
> 
> *(b) She's elected, so she can't be fired. The state legislature can impeach her but they're not likely to do so. A petition to recall her can be filed, but that is time consuming and even if successful, it won't go on a ballot for a vote until November of 2016.*
> 
> c) Fining her is ineffective because she won't be paying the fine.
> 
> The judge took the only effective avenue available to him.



(b) was the alternative, but the majority wanted instant satisfaction.




stanb999 said:


> As a libertarian atheist I just don't see the the argument on both sides. It's frankly ridiculous.
> 
> So if the building inspector refuses to approve a new church because they are Muslim it's all good? It would be against his religion to allow an expansion of Christianity after all.
> 
> Shouldn't people who love each other just ... love with out permission from "the man"?
> 
> 
> IMHO, It has nothing to do with the clerk. It's not like she has some greater responsibility in the transaction that checking the paperwork. She has an aversion to see two male names on a birth cert in a row? Does she feel that she her self approves the marriages? Like blesses then or something?
> 
> Can someone explain with logic where this is anything more than just failing to do your job?
> 
> If it's just failing to do your job you should lose your job not go to jail. Can some explain with logic why this woman is in jail.
> 
> 
> logic only, no "feelings", "beliefs", or notions,



That will be a rare response on here, but you are correct.



Agriculture said:


> What amuses me about the mini movement by her fellow religious zealots to support her is that they don't even realize that they have already lost.* What are they going to gain? *She will get out of jail eventually, with or without them. She will also lose her job, elected or not, her choice or not. There is no way that in today's climate any judge is going to uphold her position, so where will be their victory? She also doesn't get that her actions have only drawn more attention to and garnered more support for gay marriage. I still am not in favor of it, but since it doesn't affect me I support those whose rights she has denied with her abuse of power in the name of some god more than I support her bigotry. And the son should be in jail too.



Nevada asked the same question a few pages back, "What does she expect to accomplish?"

Something that is intangible and therefore of little value to most people.
It is also partly due to not understanding or accepting that in some rare cases one may face a battle of insurmountable odds, yet carry on regardless.
The old Irish saying, "Certain defeat is still no reason not to fight,"
I think you're either born with this, or you're not.

What could she hope to gain?

An example to show others, primarily Christians, what to expect from this world we live in now.
The world will not respect you or your beliefs, they will try everything in their power to change you, force you to submit to their ways, or punish you if you won't.

Christians should be wary of a government that establishes laws in conflict with their beliefs. The ultimate choice is if you are employed by the gov't.
The KY clerk will eventually face that choice.


----------



## Raeven

farmrbrown said:


> (b) was the alternative, but the majority wanted instant satisfaction.


You, too, are confusing the remedies available to the State of Kentucky v. what happened in the instant case. The State of Kentucky was not going to act, though the citizens may well still petition for her recall. That is not precluded by the case at bar.

The case at bar was filed in Federal Court by the ACLU on behalf of a protected class of citizens, made so by the Supreme Court's earlier ruling making gay marriage the law of the land. Kim Davis violated that FEDERAL law by denying rights to that protected class. She was therefore summoned to the Federal Court to explain why she was denying those rights. She was found in contempt and is paying the price for her contempt of the Court's ruling.

Actions in both the state and federal jurisdictions are simultaneously possible.


----------



## Raeven

arabian knight said:


> And THAT is the biggest mistake is taking the aclu into this they should stay AWAY~! And GO AWAY. Some of the worse things in this country has been brought to you by that aclu folks. Bad deal all the way around.


How horrible, an organization founded for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of Americans to equal treatment.

Thanks for reminding me it's time to donate again.


----------



## Ziptie

greg273 said:


> Putting her is jail is kind of dumb... that'll just give her a 'martyr' complex. And I don't want to pay for her food, lodging, or waste the jails space on such a person, being she is just speaking her conscience not a danger to anyone.
> I'd tell her we're going to have a special election since you can't do your job, and your name will NOT be on the ballot.



Maybe they are afraid to have another election because she might win again (as a write in). Then what would happen?


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> (b) was the alternative, but the majority wanted instant satisfaction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That will be a rare response on here, but you are correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nevada asked the same question a few pages back, "What does she expect to accomplish?"
> 
> Something that is intangible and therefore of little value to most people.
> It is also partly due to not understanding or accepting that in some rare cases one may face a battle of insurmountable odds, yet carry on regardless.
> The old Irish saying, "Certain defeat is still no reason not to fight,"
> I think you're either born with this, or you're not.
> 
> What could she hope to gain?
> 
> An example to show others, primarily Christians, what to expect from this world we live in now.
> The world will not respect you or your beliefs, they will try everything in their power to change you, force you to submit to their ways, or punish you if you won't.
> 
> Christians should be wary of a government that establishes laws in conflict with their beliefs. The ultimate choice is if you are employed by the gov't.
> The KY clerk will eventually face that choice.


For too many years gay couples had to live with your Irish proverb. They faced certain defeat in the courts, legislature or the realm of public opinion. You speak of instant gratification. Yet they kept fighting. How long is "instant"? I posted earlier of the Texas couple who had been together 53 years. I can show other examples of couples who waited 15, 20, 30,40+ years for this moment in history. How much longer would you have these couples wait for something that was settled by the Supreme Court? They have the right to walk into a government office and get a marriage license. It's not a right they should be denied by any individual for one second longer. 

I've expressed many times that I have no desire to see people like her jailed. But in this case it seemed to be the only way to keep her from interfering in others god given rights. The right to be treated equally. I hope whatever reward she gets in the next life is the one she hopes for. I believe that she may not be treated as well as she hopes.


----------



## MoonRiver

Raeven said:


> How horrible, an organization founded for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of Americans to equal treatment.
> 
> Thanks for reminding me it's time to donate again.


That may have been what it was founded for, but that is not what they have become. My guess is they take 10 liberal cases for every conservative case they take.

In this case, they chose gay marriage over religious rights?


----------



## MoonRiver

Raeven said:


> You, too, are confusing the remedies available to the State of Kentucky v. what happened in the instant case. The State of Kentucky was not going to act, though the citizens may well still petition for her recall. That is not precluded by the case at bar.
> 
> The case at bar was filed in Federal Court by the ACLU on behalf of a protected class of citizens, made so by the Supreme Court's earlier ruling making gay marriage the law of the land. Kim Davis violated that FEDERAL law by denying rights to that protected class. She was therefore summoned to the Federal Court to explain why she was denying those rights. She was found in contempt and is paying the price for her contempt of the Court's ruling.
> 
> Actions in both the state and federal jurisdictions are simultaneously possible.


Your prejudice is showing. Why is it that you think the citizens may petition for her recall, but you don't think the state will act? All the state has to do is rewrite the marriage license law to say a clerk or deputy clerk can authorize the license and problem is solved (unless all deputy clerks and clerk refused).


----------



## Raeven

MoonRiver said:


> Your prejudice is showing. Why is it that you think the citizens may petition for her recall, but you don't think the state will act? All the state has to do is rewrite the marriage license law to say a clerk or deputy clerk can authorize the license and problem is solved (unless all deputy clerks and clerk refused).


Prejudice? I simply explained how the law works. I was referring to the action the State of Kentucky could take with respect to recalling Kim Davis. They won't act to do that. Surely you don't think otherwise.

I don't expect them to rewrite the marriage license law, either. I base that on their conservatism, not any prejudice on my part.


----------



## Raeven

MoonRiver said:


> That may have been what it was founded for, but that is not what they have become. My guess is they take 10 liberal cases for every conservative case they take.
> 
> In this case, they chose gay marriage over religious rights?


 Any conservative that asks for their help to protect religious liberties will enjoy their protections as much as any liberal. Unfortunately, conservatives often seem to want freedom to persecute others under the guise of religious protections, as we have seen for nearly 20 pages here. Over and over, we see that itâs ok with them to trample the rights of others who are different than they are in the name of âreligious rights.â 

Practice your religion. Do whatever you want. That is, anything that doesnât tell everyone else they must do the same.

Really, itâs a simple point. Religious rights donât extend to persecuting another citizen. Iâm sorry you donât get that.


----------



## MoonRiver

Raeven said:


> Prejudice? I simply explained how the law works. I was referring to the action the State of Kentucky could take with respect to recalling Kim Davis. They won't act to do that. Surely you don't think otherwise.
> 
> I don't expect them to rewrite the marriage license law, either. I base that on their conservatism, not any prejudice on my part.


Do you mean the conservative Democrat governor or the conservative Democrat House?


----------



## Raeven

MoonRiver said:


> Do you mean the conservative Democrat governor or the conservative Democrat House?


I think I was clear. I mean the conservative State of Kentucky. And as I understand it, they're out of session until January. I don't see any of those legislators jumping up to call a special session to recall Ms. Davis. Do you?


----------



## Cornhusker

I just noticed the title of this thread, and thought popped into my head: "You have to have a license to have same sex?"


----------



## arabian knight

The aclu no longer represents the best interests in America, but the worst interests, from pedophiles and sex offenders, to Marxists and Communists. The ACLU has become an ugly destructive force undermining the greatest nation civilization has ever known~!


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> That may have been what it was founded for, but that is not what they have become. My guess is they take 10 liberal cases for every conservative case they take.
> 
> In this case, they chose gay marriage over religious rights?


Gay marriage is going to happen, but she can chose to not take part is the process. It's like conscientious objectors who have a moral problem with the military killing people. They can't stop the military from doing it, but they can refuse to take part in the process.


----------



## mmoetc

arabian knight said:


> The aclu no longer represents the best interests in America, but the worst interests, from pedophiles and sex offenders, to Marxists and Communists. The ACLU has become an ugly destructive force undermining the greatest nation civilization has ever known~!


They've also defended the Westboro Baptists in Iowa to protect their religous freedom. Ironic, huh? They've defended the most homophobic of Christians and the homesexuals that group actively campaigns against. Sounds pretty even handed to me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MoonRiver said:


> If I was in that county and I had an urgency to get married, I would simply go to a different county for the license. So while she may have caused me some aggravation and time, she wouldn't have forced anything on me. *Should I have to do that? No*, but she didn't stop anyone from getting married as they had another option.
> 
> So she didn't stop anyone from being married. She did stop some people from receiving a marriage license in her county, but a license from another county was valid in her county. So anyone that wanted to be married, could have been.


She has no right to force that choice on them



MoonRiver said:


> You tell me. Is there anything in the Bible about prohibiting marriage of a Pagan couple?


It makes no difference what the Bible says when discussing the actions of a Govt employee refusing to do their job. 

The Bible isn't an "employee handbook"


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MoonRiver said:


> Your prejudice is showing. Why is it that you think the citizens may petition for her recall, but you don't think the state will act? *All the state has to do is rewrite the marriage license law to say a clerk or deputy clerk can authorize the license and problem is solved* (unless all deputy clerks and clerk refused).


You've been shown multiple times the law already says deputy clerks can sign the license.
Nothing needs "rewriting"


----------



## wiscto

farmrbrown said:


> I believe this was the reason the judge offered her an alternative of someone else issuing the licenses, to accommodate her religious beliefs.
> 
> 
> http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm
> 
> 
> I think you'll find some amusing contradictions to the law in your post.


She represents the GOVERNMENT. Let's say I'm president. Can I refuse to sign a bill into law that allows for emergency subsidies for cattle ranchers in a natural disaster zone if I'm Hindu and I don't want to do my job because I believe killing cows is blasphemy? Or would that be unconstitutional...?

Get real. The government is the government. If she wants to be treated like the rest of us, she can get a job in the private sector where she has no power over the rest of us, and isn't paid for by our taxes.


----------



## mmoetc

wiscto said:


> She represents the GOVERNMENT. Let's say I'm president. Can I refuse to sign a bill into law that allows for emergency subsidies for cattle ranchers in a natural disaster zone if I'm Hindu and I don't want to do my job because I believe killing cows is blasphemy? Or would that be unconstitutional...?
> 
> Get real. The government is the government. If she wants to be treated like the rest of us, she can get a job in the private sector where she has no power over the rest of us, and isn't paid for by our taxes.


It would be an entirely constitutional act for the president to sign or not sign any bill for any reason. Congress can override that veto. The president could even issue an exucutive order not to enforce the &#322;aw. He had that power. The courts have the power to judge that order and order compliance. Non compliance at that point could trigger penalties.


----------



## wiscto

mmoetc said:


> It would be an entirely constitutional act for the president to sign or not sign any bill for any reason. Congress can override that veto. The president could even issue an exucutive order not to enforce the &#322;aw. He had that power. The courts have the power to judge that order and order compliance. Non compliance at that point could trigger penalties.


No. Absolutely not. By making that decision he has ultimately decided that the state religion is Hinduism, and it's more likely that he would be impeached. Because that is a violation of the Constitution.


----------



## Nevada

mmoetc said:


> It would be an entirely constitutional act for the president to sign or not sign any bill for any reason.


That's true, the act of signing, not signing, or vetoing a bill is constitutional. But the bill itself could be declared unconstitutional by the courts.


----------



## mmoetc

wiscto said:


> No. Absolutely not. By making that decision he has ultimately decided that the state religion is Hinduism, and it's more likely that he would be impeached. Because that is a violation of the Constitution.


The act of vetoing a bill is constitutional. The US constitution gives no grounds under which such a veto is prohibited. It gives recourse for congress to override such a veto. Issuing an executive order has also been deemed to be a constitutional act. The order itself may be deemed to be unconstitutional and thus unenforcable but the act of issuing one is not illegal. Just as the act of congress passing a law that violates the constitution isn't illegal. Holding religous views and using them to inform ones actions isn't unconstitutional, even by elected officials. Using those religous views to deny another a constitutionally guaranteed right, is. Eta- your scenario contains no impeachable offense.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> Gay marriage is going to happen, but she can chose to not take part is the process. It's like conscientious objectors who have a moral problem with the military killing people. They can't stop the military from doing it, but they can refuse to take part in the process.


Great example, but it disproves the point you were trying to make.

The military allows conscientious objectors to serve and they don't make them kill people. So why should the government either 1) prohibit the woman from being a clerk or 2) forcing her to authorize gay marriage?


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> So why should the government either 1) prohibit the woman from being a clerk or 2) forcing her to authorize gay marriage?


1) The judge isn't asking her to step down as clerk.
2) The judge is OK with deputy clerks issuing licenses, so she's not being forced to take part.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> Great example, but it disproves the point you were trying to make.
> 
> The military allows conscientious objectors to serve and they don't make them kill people. So why should the government either 1) prohibit the woman from being a clerk or 2) forcing her to authorize gay marriage?


1. She is a clerk.... Mute point
2. Handing out marriage licenses to anyone who legally qualifies is part of a clerks duties. No one is forcing her to do that, she has the choice to either do her job or resign.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> 2. Handing out marriage licenses to anyone who legally qualifies is part of a clerks duties. No one is forcing her to do that, she has the choice to either do her job or resign.


or, simply allow her deputy clerks to issue licenses.


----------



## mmoetc

MoonRiver said:


> Great example, but it disproves the point you were trying to make.
> 
> The military allows conscientious objectors to serve and they don't make them kill people. So why should the government either 1) prohibit the woman from being a clerk or 2) forcing her to authorize gay marriage?


But the military also doesn't allow those conscientious objectors who serve in non combatant capacity to interfere with those who are charged with fighting and killing the enemy. This woman is free to remain as clerk and not personally issue licenses. She cannot serve as clerk and stop her deputy clerks from doing their duty.


----------



## Evons hubby

Nevada said:


> or, simply allow her deputy clerks to issue licenses.


She can't prevent them from signing but that's really not the point, she is getting paid to do a job, if she don't want to do that job, she needs to quit.


----------



## Nevada

Yvonne's hubby said:


> She can't prevent them from signing but that's really not the point, she is getting paid to do a job, if she don't want to do that job, she needs to quit.


Maybe so, but I'm OK with deputy clerks issuing licenses. As long as the job gets done I'm good with it.

But I admit that you're correct. If you take a job with the government, and you don't like what the government is doing, you can't refuse to carry out your duties and expect to keep your job. She doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. Quite frankly, I'm disappointed that a county clerk doesn't recognize that. She evidently doesn't have an analytical legal mind.


----------



## arabian knight

MoonRiver said:


> Great example, but it disproves the point you were trying to make.
> 
> The military allows conscientious objectors to serve and they don't make them kill people. So why should the government either 1) prohibit the woman from being a clerk or 2) forcing her to authorize gay marriage?


*Legally, âGodâs authorityâ is a tough issue*


> Kentucky county clerk Kim -Davisâs assertion that she answers to a higher authority won her no reprieve from a federal judge this week. *But the question of whether people must obey the law when they say it violates their religious beliefs is being debated in state legislatures and the nationâs courts *and has become a galvanizing issue in the Republican presidential nomination campaign.
> 
> Legal experts across the political spectrum said Davis was on shaky ground as a public official who has pledged to uphold the law. *But the question of whether private citizens and organizations â and officials such as Davis â deserve more protection for their religious beliefs is a contentious one across the country.*


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/legally-âgodâs-authorityâ-is-a-tough-issue/ar-AAdXziH?li=BBgzzfc


----------



## kuriakos

> She doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. Quite frankly, I'm disappointed that a county clerk doesn't recognize that. She evidently doesn't have an analytical legal mind.


She's a glorified cashier/secretary. She probably has no legal training whatsoever.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> 1) The judge isn't asking her to step down as clerk.
> 2) The judge is OK with deputy clerks issuing licenses, so she's not being forced to take part.


Then why is she still in jail?


----------



## MoonRiver

Yvonne's hubby said:


> She can't prevent them from signing but that's really not the point, she is getting paid to do a job, if she don't want to do that job, she needs to quit.


Then what's the purpose of the religious clause of the 1st Amendment, if your employer can make you compromise your religious beliefs? Especially when your employer is the government.


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> Then why is she still in jail?


Because she refused to accept the judge's offer to release her if she would agree to allow her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses. I think that was a fair offer, which she really should have accepted.


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> Then what's the purpose of the religious clause of the 1st Amendment, if your employer can make you compromise your religious beliefs?


She's not forced to be county clerk. If her religion doesn't allow her to carry out the duties of clerk then she's free to resign.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MoonRiver said:


> Then why is she still in jail?


She still hasn't complied with the Judge's orders.
She instructed the Deputy clerks to NOT sign


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MoonRiver said:


> Then what's the purpose of the religious clause of the *1st Amendment*, if your *employer* can make you compromise your religious beliefs? Especially when your employer is the government.


That refers to what the Govt can and cannot do as official policy
Statutes cover employee/employer relations.

Her beliefs aren't being "compromised" since she can still believe anything she likes, and she is free to leave the job at any time.



> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


She's free to "exercise" her religion anytime she's not at work, just like everyone else


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> For too many years gay couples had to live with your Irish proverb. They faced certain defeat in the courts, legislature or the realm of public opinion. You speak of instant gratification. Yet they kept fighting. How long is "instant"? I posted earlier of the Texas couple who had been together 53 years. I can show other examples of couples who waited 15, 20, 30,40+ years for this moment in history. How much longer would you have these couples wait for something that was settled by the Supreme Court? They have the right to walk into a government office and get a marriage license. It's not a right they should be denied by any individual for one second longer.



How long? Maybe another 6 months, that's when KY legislature comes back in session or a recall election could be held.

As far as the Irish Proverb.......sorry, that's just the way we are.
Why do you think we were sought after by the British to be on their front lines?
What? How many? How big are they?
ound:ound:ound:





wiscto said:


> She represents the GOVERNMENT. Let's say I'm president. Can I refuse to sign a bill into law that allows for emergency subsidies for cattle ranchers in a natural disaster zone if I'm Hindu and I don't want to do my job because I believe killing cows is blasphemy? Or would that be unconstitutional...?
> 
> Get real. The government is the government. If she wants to be treated like the rest of us, she can get a job in the private sector where she has no power over the rest of us, and isn't paid for by our taxes.


Unfortunately the EEOC laws cover a lot of government employees as well.
Sorry about that, but as we've been told repeatedly, the law is the law.
How 'bout that?



Bearfootfarm said:


> The Bible isn't an "employee handbook"


That depends I guess, if you're working for Him or not.


----------



## MoonRiver

Nevada said:


> She's not forced to be county clerk. If her religion doesn't allow her to carry out the duties of clerk then she's free to resign.


Doesn't answer the question.


----------



## farmrbrown

mmoetc said:


> For too many years gay couples had to live with your Irish proverb. They faced certain defeat in the courts, legislature or the realm of public opinion. You speak of instant gratification. Yet they kept fighting. How long is "instant"? I posted earlier of the Texas couple who had been together 53 years. I can show other examples of couples who waited 15, 20, 30,40+ years for this moment in history. How much longer would you have these couples wait for something that was settled by the Supreme Court? They have the right to walk into a government office and get a marriage license. It's not a right they should be denied by any individual for one second longer.



How long? Maybe another 6 months, that's when KY legislature comes back in session or a recall election could be held.

As far as the Irish Proverb.......sorry, that's just the way we are.
Why do you think we were sought after by the British to be on their front lines?
(We Scots, too)
What? How many? How big are they?
ound:ound:ound:


[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbu5H65tMJ4[/ame]




wiscto said:


> She represents the GOVERNMENT. Let's say I'm president. Can I refuse to sign a bill into law that allows for emergency subsidies for cattle ranchers in a natural disaster zone if I'm Hindu and I don't want to do my job because I believe killing cows is blasphemy? Or would that be unconstitutional...?
> 
> Get real. The government is the government. If she wants to be treated like the rest of us, she can get a job in the private sector where she has no power over the rest of us, and isn't paid for by our taxes.


Unfortunately the EEOC laws cover a lot of government employees as well.
Sorry about that, but as we've been told repeatedly, the law is the law.
How 'bout that?



Bearfootfarm said:


> The Bible isn't an "employee handbook"


That depends I guess, if you're working for Him or not.


----------



## MoonRiver

Bearfootfarm said:


> She instructed the Deputy clerks to NOT sign


I could be wrong, but I don't believe that is correct.


----------



## MoonRiver

Bearfootfarm said:


> That refers to what the Govt can and cannot do as official policy
> Statutes cover employee/employer relations.
> 
> Her beliefs aren't being "compromised" since she can still believe anything she likes, and she is free to leave the job at any time.
> 
> She's free to "exercise" her religion anytime she's not at work, just like everyone else


That's an incorrect explanation. It applies at work as well as off work.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Why do you think we were sought after by the British *to be on their front lines*?
> 
> That depends I guess, if you're working for Him or not.


Maybe they wanted the Irish killed first.

Unless God is signing your checks, no one works "for him" in an employee sense.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MoonRiver said:


> I could be wrong, but I don't believe that is correct.


It's exactly why she's in jail.
I don't make this stuff up:

http://www.themoreheadnews.com/news...cle_143bdf68-5284-11e5-a501-f34098c4e1b4.html


> Bill Sharp with the ACLU questioned Davis asking her if her claim that she was acting on God's authority overruled the court.
> âIt supersedes any authority,â said Davis.
> 
> *Sharp asked if she had instructed her deputy clerks to not issue licenses and she said she had*.
> 
> Davis' attorneys asked if the contempt charge could be purged since Bunning had found a remedy by ordering the deputy clerks to issue licenses.
> Bunning recessed the court and told Liberty Counsel to consult with their client and *see if she would allow her employees to issue licenses*.
> 
> â*She still does not grant authority and will not issue licenses*,â said Ganam.





> That's an incorrect explanation. *It applies at work* as well as off work.


No, it does not allow you to refuse to perform your job, which is also why she is in jail.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> Then what's the purpose of the religious clause of the 1st Amendment, if your employer can make you compromise your religious beliefs? Especially when your employer is the government.


Her employer is not asking her to go against her beliefs, they are simply asking her to do the job she signed up for and gets paid to do. The first amendment clause was put there to prevent government interference with any ones religion.... Like this broad is doing.


----------



## stanb999

Raeven said:


> As to your question about whether people should "just.... love" each other, I'm sure they do. But the legal contract of marriage confers many privileges to which our Supreme Court has ruled all eligible for marriage in this country are entitled. The right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, for example. The right to file a joint tax return. The right of inheritance. These are some of the many legal reasons why people formalize their love relationships with marriage.
> 
> As to why the woman is in jail, it's very simple:
> 
> a) She is not doing her job.
> 
> b) She's elected, so she can't be fired. The state legislature can impeach her but they're not likely to do so. A petition to recall her can be filed, but that is time consuming and even if successful, it won't go on a ballot for a vote until November of 2016.
> 
> c) Fining her is ineffective because she won't be paying the fine.
> 
> The judge took the only effective avenue available to him.


So basically she is being a bumb butt and needs to be replaced. IMHO if the state won't impeach then the will of the people has been spoken in that state, maybe the state should jail the federal judge. I'm sure he doesn't have a 1000 man security detail. Cna the state call up 10000 reserve? I'd bet on it . If jailed then the federal government can send federal troops to free him. Of course 1 million men or more reside in the state they could most certainly mount a posse to hang the federal troops. Then ultimately the federal troops can free their soldiers with weapons of war. Are you yourself willing to send your husdand, son, brother, father, etc to die for this? Does it mean that much to you? If not just submit. As Jesus told you. Christians are a passified mass of human give up.


----------



## stanb999

Or are you just full of bravado? Aka a no substance or real conviction.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> Then why is she still in jail?


Because she is a hateful self righteous bigot?


----------



## Raeven

stanb999 said:


> Or are you just full of bravado? Aka a no substance or real conviction.


Just to be clear, since you quoted me in your previous post, you DO understand I agree with the judge and his response, right? Your call to action is for those who are championing the clerk, and you get that I am not one of those people, correct? 

You asked for a logical explanation for why the judge did what he did and I tried to provide one.


----------



## stanb999

Raeven said:


> Just to be clear, since you quoted me in your previous post, you DO understand I agree with the judge and his response, right? Your call to action is for those who are championing the clerk, and you get that I am not one of those people, correct?
> 
> You asked for a logical explanation for why the judge did what he did and I tried to provide one.


It fails the logic test... putting an elected official in prison will not affect the outcome. This is a pissing match about states rights. The likely outcome is less federal power. Because that power will ultimately need to be enforced with a gun... I ask you. Are you willing to send your son,husband, brother, father do die to defend this persons rights? If not you projecting naked athority. Naked athority fails.


----------



## Raeven

stanb999 said:


> It fails the logic test... putting an elected official in prison will not affect the outcome.




In fact, it has affected the outcome. They're issuing marriage licenses.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Maybe they wanted the Irish killed first.
> 
> Unless God is signing your checks, no one works "for him" in an employee sense.


Hmmmmm..........What's it say on *your* money?


Actually I try to do the work that He asks of me, and the pay?
Let's just say, when He wants something done, all He has to do is ask. He does pretty good by me.


----------



## farmrbrown

Raeven said:


> In fact, it has affected the outcome. They're issuing marriage licenses.


Yes they are, but *she* isn't.


----------



## arabian knight

*Hundreds rally outside jail to support Ky. cler*k











> Up to 500 supporters gathered outside a Kentucky jail on Saturday to support a county clerk held there for defying a federal judge's order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
> 
> Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis, 49, who refused the licenses due to her Christian belief that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, said she was prepared to remain in jail where she has been reading a Bible since her incarceration for contempt on Thursday, her lawyers said.
> 
> On Saturday, a white banner spray-painted with the black letters "Kim Davis POW" was placed near the entrance of the jail in Grayson, Kentucky, and a bagpipe and drum corps played "You're a Grand Old Flag" and marched to a field across from the jail.
> 
> "God is going to continue to bless Kim Davis," the mayor of Grayson George Steele told those gathered before leading the group in prayer for the program, which ran a little over an hour.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hundreds-rally-outside-jail-to-support-ky-clerk/ar-AAdZcCZ


----------



## gibbsgirl

I haven't been following all of this thread, so I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, but Madonna's brother, Christopher ciccone, who is gay, made an interesting statement about the ky clerk. Just read it in a yahoo article.

www.yahoo.com/movies/s/madonnas-bro...lerk-refused-marriage-licenses-040042056.html


----------



## Evons hubby

stanb999 said:


> It fails the logic test... putting an elected official in prison will not affect the outcome. This is a pissing match about states rights. The likely outcome is less federal power. Because that power will ultimately need to be enforced with a gun... I ask you. Are you willing to send your son,husband, brother, father do die to defend this persons rights? If not you projecting naked athority. Naked athority fails.


The Feds only have one dog in this fight, albeit a pretty strong dog. The constitution guarantees "equal treatment under the law" to all of our citizens. This clerk has violated that premise by her refusal to provide marriage licenses to legally qualified applicants. She overstepped her bounds by discriminating against citizens because they did not live up to her religious standards. She is now finding out that her right to practice her religion freely does not include the right to discriminate against others because they do not adhere to her personal set of values.


----------



## Patchouli

MoonRiver said:


> You tell me. Is there anything in the Bible about prohibiting marriage of a Pagan couple?


No they are just supposed to be stoned to death.... Or burnt with fire. Depending on which verse you prefer.


----------



## Patchouli

MoonRiver said:


> This is how North Carolina addressed a related problem. Republican governor vetoed it, but NC House and Senate overrode the veto.
> 
> I'm thinking the reason the Kentucky governor and legislature haven't acted is because the governor is Democrat and the House is controlled by Democrats. This problem could be easily resolved if the legislature acted.


There is a vast difference between handing out a license and actually performing a marriage. Judges and Justices of the Peace have never been required as part of their jobs to perform marriages. They are just authorised to conduct them if they so choose. A lot of them don't just because they don't want to be bothered with it. 

A marriage license is required and a clerk is required as part of their job to hand them out. Period.


----------



## Raeven

farmrbrown said:


> Yes they are, but *she* isn't.


LOL, a choice that was hers to make and that will render her more irrelevant every day. Give it time. She'll either issue them or she'll be gone.


----------



## Raeven

arabian knight said:


> *Hundreds rally outside jail to support Ky. cler*k
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hundreds-rally-outside-jail-to-support-ky-clerk/ar-AAdZcCZ


Gosh, 500, huh? Out of a population of 23,000+ in that county? Not too worried they're in the majority.


----------



## Patchouli

MoonRiver said:


> I could be wrong, but I don't believe that is correct.



I posted a clip from a newspaper article earlier in this thread saying that is exactly what happened. 

(CNN)Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis was given a second chance: She didn't have to issue same-sex marriage licenses herself; she merely had to agree not to interfere with five deputy clerks who had told the federal judge they'd issue them in her stead. 

But Davis' lawyer told U.S. District Judge David Bunning that his client would not allow her deputies to issue the licenses. Davis was not in the courtroom for the second session. She was in a hallway outside. 
"We cannot represent to the court that she would allow licenses to be issued," attorney Mat Staver said. 



http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/03/p...ex-marriage-kim-davis/index.html?eref=edition


----------



## Evons hubby

Patchouli said:


> I posted a clip from a newspaper article earlier in this thread saying that is exactly what happened.
> 
> (CNN)Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis was given a second chance: She didn't have to issue same-sex marriage licenses herself; she merely had to agree not to interfere with five deputy clerks who had told the federal judge they'd issue them in her stead.
> 
> But Davis' lawyer told U.S. District Judge David Bunning that his client would not allow her deputies to issue the licenses. Davis was not in the courtroom for the second session. She was in a hallway outside.
> "We cannot represent to the court that she would allow licenses to be issued," attorney Mat Staver said.
> 
> 
> 
> http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/03/p...ex-marriage-kim-davis/index.html?eref=edition


I don't believe she has much control over what her deputies do. The law gives them the authority to sign them, not her.


----------



## kuriakos

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I don't believe she has much control over what her deputies do. The law gives them the authority to sign them, not her.


But as their boss, she can direct them not to sign the certificates and she can fire them if they disregard her instructions. That's why it was necessary to remove her from the equation when she indicated she would not allow the deputies to issue the licenses.


----------



## Evons hubby

kuriakos said:


> But as their boss, she can direct them not to sign the certificates and she can fire them if they disregard her instructions. That's why it was necessary to remove her from the equation when she indicated she would not allow the deputies to issue the licenses.


I cannot imagine what grounds she would have for firing them when they would not be committing any crimes...unlike her.


----------



## kuriakos

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I cannot imagine what grounds she would have for firing them when they would not be committing any crimes...unlike her.


They don't have to commit crimes to be fired. There are all kinds of legitimate reasons to fire someone that don't involve crimes. But she wouldn't necessarily need a legitimate reason. As you pointed out, she's already run afoul of the law to push her agenda. What makes you think she wouldn't continue that course?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Hmmmmm..........What's it say on *your* money?
> 
> 
> Actually I try to do the work that He asks of me, and the pay?
> Let's just say, when He wants something done, all He has to do is ask. He does pretty good by me.


It doesn't say it came *from* God.
The word games won't change that


----------



## Trixie

Again, I don't care who or what someone marries - but I'm thinking this lady is doing exactly what the gay community hoped she would.

Now, I'm just waiting to see what they are going to do when someone wants a 'multiple' marriage license?

Are they going to allow plural marriages?

I don't see how they can stop it - really. I guess, also, I don't know why they would care.


----------



## Evons hubby

kuriakos said:


> They don't have to commit crimes to be fired. There are all kinds of legitimate reasons to fire someone that don't involve crimes. But she wouldn't necessarily need a legitimate reason. As you pointed out, she's already run afoul of the law to push her agenda. What makes you think she wouldn't continue that course?


Well she is digging a fairly deep hole, probably is not going to end well that's for sure.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Trixie said:


> Again, I don't care who or what someone marries - but I'm thinking this lady is doing exactly what the gay community hoped she would.
> 
> *Now, I'm just waiting to see what they are going to do when someone wants a 'multiple' marriage license?*
> 
> Are they going to allow plural marriages?
> 
> I don't see how they can stop it - really. I guess, also, I don't know why they would care.


I suspect this group will be the first to file a suit:

http://radaronline.com/celebrity-ne...uit-court-documents-fornication-once-a-crime/

The tricky part will be figuring out how to do all the tax and property issues


----------



## gibbsgirl

kuriakos said:


> But as their boss, she can direct them not to sign the certificates and she can fire them if they disregard her instructions. That's why it was necessary to remove her from the equation when she indicated she would not allow the deputies to issue the licenses.


I read an article this week that said most of her deputies were handing out certificates, but none of them had her signature affixed to them. There was a question whether they would be considered legal, but the people receiving them were using them anyway. I think someone named Bunning who was a judge (?) Was asked if they were uld be legally binding certificates without the signature, and hr said that was not settled yet, but the people could still have them if they wanted to. I guess the legality of them will have to be sorted out at some point

eta. If I understood it correctly, I guess deputies don't sign them, only her name would go on them to make them valid.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

The County Clerk didn't "sign" Kim Davis's wedding license that Nevada showed in Post #324.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...rs-county-clerk-issue-same-sex-licens-17.html

The name is typed in and initialed

I see no reason why they would do anything different when they were instructed to issue the licenses. 

I suspect all the talk about whether or not they are "valid" was merely a ploy by her lawyers


----------



## Evons hubby

gibbsgirl said:


> I read an article this week that said most of her deputies were handing out certificates, but none of them had her signature affixed to them. There was a question whether they would be considered legal, but the people receiving them were using them anyway. I think someone named Bunning who was a judge (?) Was asked if they were uld be legally binding certificates without the signature, and hr said that was not settled yet, but the people could still have them if they wanted to. I guess the legality of them will have to be sorted out at some point
> 
> eta. If I understood it correctly, I guess deputies don't sign them, only her name would go on them to make them valid.


Go back a page, the applicable statute was posted along with her own marriage license (one of them) with just a deputy clerks signature. There remains little doubt as to the legality of the license or certificate of marriage. The statute plainly states both documents can be signed by the clerk or a deputy clerk. Her signature is not required.


----------



## stanb999

Yvonne's hubby said:


> The Feds only have one dog in this fight, albeit a pretty strong dog. The constitution guarantees "equal treatment under the law" to all of our citizens. This clerk has violated that premise by her refusal to provide marriage licenses to legally qualified applicants. She overstepped her bounds by discriminating against citizens because they did not live up to her religious standards. She is now finding out that her right to practice her religion freely does not include the right to discriminate against others because they do not adhere to her personal set of values.



Sure, But I'm not interested in her conviction on the matter. She is just one person. 

I'm interested in the keyboard revolutionaries on both sides of the issue. So much bloviating about a topic they have had no real say in. This was decided by 7 people in a country of 300 million. It easily could have gone the other way and the other side could have their poster child facing jail. This simple fact offends my sensibilities. Who really wants to get marriage licenses? Who really wants others to decide what marriage means?


----------



## Jim Bunton

stanb999 said:


> Sure, But I'm not interested in her conviction on the matter. She is just one person.
> 
> I'm interested in the keyboard revolutionaries on both sides of the issue. So much bloviating about a topic they have had no real say in. This was decided by 7 people in a country of 300 million. It easily could have gone the other way and the other side could have their poster child facing jail. This simple fact offends my sensibilities. Who really wants to get marriage licenses? Who really wants others to decide what marriage means?


In the context that you are talking about that the court decided marriage licenses are about the rights that come along with the license. The courts have no jurisdiction over God's definition of marriage.

Jim


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> It doesn't say it came *from* God.
> The word games won't change that


Nope, word games won't change where EVERYTHING comes from, including money.
The Pharisees tried to trick Jesus with that line of talk on more than one occasion. People today STILL swear the bible says you have to pay taxes cuz Jesus said "render to Caesar".
He didn't fall for it, neither will I.
But there are plenty of blind walking around that can't see something when it is right in front of them.
Just like all the demeaning talk I've read on this thread about Christians and the lies they repeat about the Bible.
But y'all carry on, you know which Master I serve.
You can serve whomever you wish.


----------



## Raeven

stanb999 said:


> Sure, But I'm not interested in her conviction on the matter. She is just one person.
> 
> I'm interested in the keyboard revolutionaries on both sides of the issue. So much bloviating about a topic they have had no real say in. This was decided by 7 people in a country of 300 million. It easily could have gone the other way and the other side could have their poster child facing jail. This simple fact offends my sensibilities. Who really wants to get marriage licenses? Who really wants others to decide what marriage means?


 What you donât seem to understand is, we *have* to have a legal definition of marriage. Not for when the marriage works. For when it doesnât. Which is about 50% of marriages in this country, Christian or otherwise.

Some legal court â in most states, county by county â must sort out the mess of who gets custody of the children, who gets what assets and what debts, who has a right to live in the family home, etc., etc., etc., when the legal marriage doesnât work out. Or do you think pastors, priests, rabbis and others should do that? And what of we atheists? Or do we just not count?

This isnât about a legal definition of marriage. That has been decided, and Kim Davisâs side lost. This is about doing the job of issuing the legal license for a marriage to be recognized by every court in the land by whatever couple has obtained that license, so a court can sort out the problems if/when that marriage fails. Including Kim Davisâs 3 failed attempts. 

I wonder â would she have even been able to *get* the first divorce had it been up to the leader of her church?


----------



## MoonRiver

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's exactly why she's in jail.
> I don't make this stuff up:
> 
> http://www.themoreheadnews.com/news...cle_143bdf68-5284-11e5-a501-f34098c4e1b4.html
> 
> No, it does not allow you to refuse to perform your job, which is also why she is in jail.


She believes that under state law, a clerk must authorize the license. She is not preventing the clerks from signing the licenses, she is saying they don't have the authority to authorize the issue of a license.

I know you believe that is an incorrect interpretation of the state law, but that is her interpretation, as well as the interpretation of some other clerks within the state. Her attorney is saying the licenses issued Friday aren't valid, so evidently he believes it as well. Why the state attorney general hasn't made a statement is beyond me? I would think he has the authority to interpret the law for the state and provide quick resolution

I'm starting to see a pattern here. Attorney-General is a Democrat and is running for Governor. No wonder he's not talking about it. The country attorney who charged Davis is also a Democrat. Governor is a Democrat. I think they may just like what's going, except for the jail part. That won't sit well with a lot of voters.

And the part about her deputies wanting to issue marriage certificates. One refused and 2 agreed only under duress. A fact I haven't seen mentioned.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> Nope, word games won't change where EVERYTHING comes from, including money.
> The Pharisees tried to trick Jesus with that line of talk on more than one occasion. People today STILL swear the bible says you have to pay taxes cuz Jesus said "render to Caesar".
> He didn't fall for it, neither will I.
> 
> *But there are plenty of blind walking around that can't see something when it is right in front of them.*
> 
> Just like all the demeaning talk I've read on this thread about Christians and the lies they repeat about the Bible.
> But y'all carry on, you know which Master I serve.
> You can serve whomever you wish.


Yes, I've noticed you often think those who disagree with you must be "blind".

You said that about me when I tried to tell you *no jury was needed* to fine her, or put her in jail, while you insisted one was required.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MoonRiver said:


> *She believes that under state law, a clerk must authorize the license.*
> 
> She is not preventing the clerks from signing the licenses, she is saying they don't have the authority to authorize the issue of a license.
> 
> I know you believe that is an incorrect interpretation of the state law, but* that is her interpretation*, as well as the interpretation of some other clerks within the state.
> 
> Her attorney is saying the licenses issued Friday aren't valid, so evidently he believes it as well. Why the state attorney general hasn't made a statement is beyond me? I would think he has the authority to interpret the law for the state and provide quick resolution
> 
> I'm starting to see a pattern here. *Attorney-General is a Democrat* and is running for Governor. No wonder he's not talking about it.
> 
> * The country attorney who charged Davis is also a Democrat. Governor is a Democrat. *
> 
> I think they may just like what's going, except for the jail part. That won't sit well with a lot of voters.
> 
> And the part about her deputies wanting to issue marriage certificates. One refused and 2 agreed only under duress.
> 
> *A fact I haven't seen mentioned*.


You keep talking about what she and her attorneys *"believe" *when that makes no difference at all. 

Reality is the law clearly states the Deputy Clerks have the authority to sign and issue marriage licences without her personal approval. 

Lots of facts have been mentioned that you claim not to have seen.
Like the fact that Davis is a *Democrat *also.
Not everything is some conspiracy


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> Yes, I've noticed you often think those who disagree with you must be "blind".
> 
> You said that about me when I tried to tell you *no jury was needed* to fine her, or put her in jail, while you insisted one was required.


Yes I did, because that's what the federal statute required.
The judge has broken the law while doing this yet no one is incarcerating him.

This world of laws that you and similar people insist on living with is intolerable to people like me who can see what's going on.
But then again, I serve a different Master.

This government's laws no longer have authority over me.
And if it's a fight y'all want with those of os who no longer accept that authority, then tread lightly and tread wisely........but Don't Tread on Me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Yes I did, because that's what the federal statute required.
> The judge has broken the law while doing this yet no one is incarcerating him.


So show him your law degrees and have him arrested 



> This government's laws no longer have authority over me.
> And if it's a fight y'all want with those of os who no longer accept that authority, then tread lightly and tread wisely........but Don't Tread on Me.


Spare the melodrama
Kim thought the same things and look where it got her

This isn't about you


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> So show him your law degrees and have him arrested
> 
> 
> Spare the melodrama
> Kim thought the same things and look where it got her
> 
> This isn't about you


I don't need a law degree to read. You conveniently left out the part that I explicitly quoted about the difference between direct and indirect contempt of court.
Did you think I didn't notice that?
The direct contempt takes place in the presence of the judge in his courtroom. The indirect involves actions that take place outside of the courtroom and failure to obey other laws the judge has ordered to be obeyed.
THAT'S when a jury trial has been required.
I haven't read the latest contempt ruling by the 6th district judge and don't have time right now.
I've got wood to get and split for upcoming winter.
Have at it yourself, or just continue to obey whatever this evil gov't tells you to do.
in that respect, I agree, that ain't about me either.

You can continue using the words "drama and melodramatic" to describe me if that's what makes you feel superior. 
I prefer the words "committed and resolute".


----------



## Nevada

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep talking about what she and her attorneys *"believe" *when that makes no difference at all.
> 
> Reality is the law clearly states the Deputy Clerks have the authority to sign and issue marriage licences without her personal approval.
> 
> Lots of facts have been mentioned that you claim not to have seen.
> Like the fact that Davis is a *Democrat *also.
> Not everything is some conspiracy


Moreover, the Rowan County Attorney has made a determination that deputy clerks are authorized to issue marriage licenses.

_Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins previously dismissed that argument, saying deputy clerks can issue valid marriage licenses without their boss's approval._
http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/04/4019876/live-updates-county-clerk-continues.html


----------



## Nevada

Raeven said:


> LOL, a choice that was hers to make and that will render her more irrelevant every day. Give it time. She'll either issue them or she'll be gone.


Of course. She has to do her job. It's as simple as that.

What if a firefighter decided that he wasn't going to fight any fires in protest of gay marriage? His reasoning would be that his religion doesn't allow him to fight fire at a home where a gay couple lived, so he'll refuse to fight all fires to not discriminate. He would lose his job and be replaced, of course.

The point is that the firefighter is free to refuse to fight fires, but he should expect to lose his job.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> I don't need a law degree to read. *You conveniently left out* the part that I explicitly quoted about the difference between direct and indirect contempt of court.
> Did you think I didn't notice that?


You left out the part that says a jury is only required if *another *law is broken.
It was your source that said so.

The fact she was put in jail *without a jury* proves you're wrong.



> I've got wood to get and split for upcoming winter.


And yet you're still here now, nearly an hour after saying you had other things to do.
Again, it's not about you


----------



## Evons hubby

stanb999 said:


> Sure, But I'm not interested in her conviction on the matter. She is just one person.
> 
> I'm interested in the keyboard revolutionaries on both sides of the issue. So much bloviating about a topic they have had no real say in. This was decided by 7 people in a country of 300 million. It easily could have gone the other way and the other side could have their poster child facing jail. This simple fact offends my sensibilities. Who really wants to get marriage licenses? Who really wants others to decide what marriage means?


Naw this was decided many years ago when the founding fathers included language in our constitution promising equal protection under the law to all of our good citizens. That language was clarified further and strengthened by the ratification of the fourteenth amendment. This very recent ruling by the supremes merely upholds the highest law of our land. We do have a say in this. We can stay in this country and obey its laws, use proper channels to amend the ones we disagree with or simply vote with our feet. I know of no law preventing anyone from leaving.


----------



## MoonRiver

Bearfootfarm said:


> You keep talking about what she and her attorneys *"believe" *when that makes no difference at all.
> 
> Reality is the law clearly states the Deputy Clerks have the authority to sign and issue marriage licences without her personal approval.
> 
> Lots of facts have been mentioned that you claim not to have seen.
> Like the fact that Davis is a *Democrat *also.
> Not everything is some conspiracy


I know Davis is a Democrat. It's a shame the other elected Democrats in Kentucky are throwing her to the wolves. I don't understand what they hope to get out of this. The governor and attorney general could probably resolve this pretty easily. Call in the legislature if necessary.

You can post as many times as you like that deputy clerks have all the authority they need to issue a license, but Kentucky is going to have to decide this.


----------



## farmrbrown

Bearfootfarm said:


> You left out the part that says a jury is only required if *another *law is broken.
> It was your source that said so.
> 
> The fact she was put in jail *without a jury* proves you're wrong.
> 
> 
> And yet you're still here now, nearly an hour after saying you had other things to do.
> Again, it's not about you



No pal, it's you who are wrong, only you're the only one that can't see it.
Just got back with 2,000 lbs of poplar and red oak. Am running the weedeater out of gas for winter storage at the moment and came in for a drink of water.
If you want pics of me splitting it today, you'll just have to wait.
Cuz I know you always ask people to "prove" it.
Honest folks just don't see the need all the time.

Got more stuff to do today, so I'll log off this time, so you can "prove" it to yourself.

The fact that she's in jail proves she in jail, NOT that you, the judge, the law or the hating gays are right.
The whole ---- world is turning upside down right now, as in the days of Noe.
But then again, they didn't see the rain coming either.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> I know Davis is a Democrat. It's a shame the other elected Democrats in Kentucky are throwing her to the wolves. I don't understand what they hope to get out of this. The governor and attorney general could probably resolve this pretty easily. Call in the legislature if necessary.
> 
> You can post as many times as you like that deputy clerks have all the authority they need to issue a license, but Kentucky is going to have to decide this.


Kentucky pretty much decided this when they adopted into into law. The deputy clerks were given the authority to sign the marriage license as well as the certificates of marriage.


----------



## stanb999

Raeven said:


> What you donât seem to understand is, we *have* to have a legal definition of marriage. Not for when the marriage works. For when it doesnât. Which is about 50% of marriages in this country, Christian or otherwise.
> 
> Some legal court â in most states, county by county â must sort out the mess of who gets custody of the children, who gets what assets and what debts, who has a right to live in the family home, etc., etc., etc., when the legal marriage doesnât work out. Or do you think pastors, priests, rabbis and others should do that? And what of we atheists? Or do we just not count?
> 
> This isnât about a legal definition of marriage. That has been decided, and Kim Davisâs side lost. This is about doing the job of issuing the legal license for a marriage to be recognized by every court in the land by whatever couple has obtained that license, so a court can sort out the problems if/when that marriage fails. Including Kim Davisâs 3 failed attempts.
> 
> I wonder â would she have even been able to *get* the first divorce had it been up to the leader of her church?


No what we need is clearly defined legal contracts. Much simpler than having the government decide what is what. The reason divorce is so difficult is the legal fiction known as marriage. If it was a pure contract with defined terms like say the parents own 50% of the children... custody is simple. You get 50% custody. Where it's difficult is support.. society knows that a woman can't generally accept 50% of the finacial burden so we make the male pay extra.


----------



## Raeven

stanb999 said:


> No what we need is clearly defined legal contracts. Much simpler than having the government decide what is what. The reason divorce is so difficult is the legal fiction known as marriage. If it was a pure contract with defined terms like say the parents own 50% of the children... custody is simple. You get 50% custody. Where it's difficult is support.. society knows that a woman can't generally accept 50% of the finacial burden so we make the male pay extra.


How do you think the courts look at marriage? That's exactly how they view it: A legal contract between two people.

Who should enforce these contracts you propose?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> No pal, *it's you who are wrong, only you're the only one that can't see it.*
> Just got back with 2,000 lbs of poplar and red oak. Am running the weedeater out of gas for winter storage at the moment and came in for a drink of water.
> If you want pics of me splitting it today, you'll just have to wait.
> Cuz I know you always ask people to "prove" it.
> Honest folks just don't see the need all the time.
> 
> Got more stuff to do today, so I'll log off this time, so you can "prove" it to yourself.
> 
> *The fact that she's in jail proves she in jail, NOT that you, the judge, the law or the hating gays are right.*
> 
> The whole ---- world is turning upside down right now, as in the days of Noe.
> But then again, they didn't see the rain coming either.


She was jailed *without a jury*, and her lawyers aren't saying it's illegal.
No one but you has made that claim.

I guess they are confused about the applicable laws too?

Shoot them an E-Mail and get her out of jail


----------



## stanb999

Raeven said:


> How do you think the courts look at marriage? That's exactly how they view it: A legal contract between two people.
> 
> Who should enforce these contracts you propose?


The issue is they aren't defined contracts. At least not as generally accepted. A defined contract has defined perameters of what is expected from both parties. Consequences for failing to live up to your side of the contract. How to disolve the contract if a breech were to occur. A judge would only be need if one of the parties didn't follow the contract after the fact. Then the job would be to enforce the contract as written. 

When I got my marriage license.? It had name, dob, address, parents name, name of witness.... not much else. What lawyer would agree to have you sign such an agreement? If I move to a different state the contract has a different potential meaning. If I live in NY I could refuse to disolve the marriage, here in PA I can't refuse, in NJ I can refuse if the judge agrees. Hardly a defined contract at all. Would the above be true for a business contract? A mortgage agreement? A contract to spray weeds with Chemlawn? Or would each state enforce the contract as written?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> When I got my *marriage license*.? It had name, dob, address, parents name, name of witness.... not much else. What lawyer would agree to have you sign such *an agreement*?


The license isn't an "agreement"
It's merely a statement showing you meet the legal requirements to be married in the state in which it was issued

It's not "*a* marriage" 



> Originally Posted by Raeven View Post
> How do you think the courts look at *marriage*? That's exactly how they view it: *A legal contract* between two people.
> 
> Who should enforce these contracts you propose?


----------



## Raeven

stanb999 said:


> The issue is they aren't defined contracts. At least not as generally accepted. A defined contract has defined perameters of what is expected from both parties. Consequences for failing to live up to your side of the contract. How to disolve the contract if a breech were to occur. A judge would only be need if one of the parties didn't follow the contract after the fact. Then the job would be to enforce the contract as written.
> 
> When I got my marriage license.? It had name, dob, address, parents name, name of witness.... not much else. What lawyer would agree to have you sign such an agreement? If I move to a different state the contract has a different potential meaning. If I live in NY I could refuse to disolve the marriage, here in PA I can't refuse, in NJ I can refuse if the judge agrees. Hardly a defined contract at all. Would the above be true for a business contract? A mortgage agreement? A contract to spray weeds with Chemlawn? Or would each state enforce the contract as written?


You're wrong about that. Go to a law class about domestic law, whether law school or paralegal, and the first thing you're going to learn is that the courts define marriage as an enforceable contract between two people. I understand your statements are made in ignorance, but this is a simple fact.

And by the way, there is nothing that precludes you from entering into your contractual "marriage." Go ahead. No need to involve the 'guv'mint' at all. But if it all goes to custard, you'll still come back to the courts to enforce your contract.


----------



## stanb999

Raeven said:


> You're wrong about that. Go to a law class about domestic law, whether law school or paralegal, and the first thing you're going to learn is that the courts define marriage as an enforceable contract between two people. I understand your statements are made in ignorance, but this is a simple fact.
> 
> And by the way, there is nothing that precludes you from entering into your contractual "marriage." Go ahead. No need to involve the 'guv'mint' at all. But if it all goes to custard, you'll still come back to the courts to enforce your contract.


So as a paralegal you know that marriage has different rules in different states... right? Who defines this "contract" is it the parties that enter it or is it the state? 


P.s. your cute attempt at ad verecundiam wont work. If you can't debate resorting to petty psycology tricks is a fools errand.


----------



## wiscto

I think it's telling that you all are okay with a government employee intruding on peoples lives and refusing to do their jobs....as long as it's based on a religious principal you all agree with.


----------



## Evons hubby

Raeven said:


> You're wrong about that. *Go to a law class about domestic law, whether law school or paralegal, and the first thing you're going to learn is that the courts define marriage as an enforceable contract between two people.* I understand your statements are made in ignorance, but this is a simple fact.
> 
> And by the way, there is nothing that precludes you from entering into your contractual "marriage." Go ahead. No need to involve the 'guv'mint' at all. But if it all goes to custard, you'll still come back to the courts to enforce your contract.


I don't recall any "terms and conditions" normally found in contracts.


----------



## Raeven

stanb999 said:


> So as a paralegal you know that marriage has different rules in different states... right? Who defines this "contract" is it the parties that enter it or is it the state?


A marriage license legitimizes your union so that in the event it fails, you may apply to the courts in whatever state you reside for a determination of a fair division of property, visitation rights, etc., etc. Each state may determine what sorts of rights you may have; e.g., community property state v. equitable distribution state. Your marriage is recognized as legitimate even if you move to a different state and that state becomes the venue for your divorce (assuming you get one).

You don't have to avail yourself of the enforcement if you don't need it or want it. 

You don't have to obtain a marriage license to consider yourself married -- unless you want to claim the right to ask the courts to assist in making an equitable agreement as to the issues stated above.

That's all a marriage license does. However, if you obtain a marriage license, then get a divorce and either of you asks for the court's protection, then you are entitled to it, within the laws of the state in which the action is filed.

If you divorce but are able to reach an agreement between the two of you, that's fine with the court and the state. In fact, they prefer that you do that. Under such circumstances, you can make your agreement as fair or unfair as you want to. It's up to the two of you.


----------



## Raeven

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I don't recall any "terms and conditions" normally found in contracts.


You'll certainly find them if you ever go to court for a divorce. However, in your case, I'm pretty sure you'll never encounter that.


----------



## stanb999

Raeven said:


> A marriage license legitimizes your union so that in the event it fails, you may apply to the courts in whatever state you reside for a determination of a fair division of property, visitation rights, etc., etc. Each state may determine what sorts of rights you may have; e.g., community property state v. equitable distribution state. Your marriage is recognized as legitimate even if you move to a different state and that state becomes the venue for your divorce (assuming you get one).
> 
> You don't have to avail yourself of the enforcement if you don't need it or want it.
> 
> You don't have to obtain a marriage license to consider yourself married -- unless you want to claim the right to ask the courts to assist in making an equitable agreement as to the issues stated above.
> 
> That's all a marriage license does. However, if you obtain a marriage license, then get a divorce and either of you asks for the court's protection, then you are entitled to it, within the laws of the state in which the action is filed.
> 
> If you divorce but are able to reach an agreement between the two of you, that's fine with the court and the state. In fact, they prefer that you do that. Under such circumstances, you can make your agreement as fair or unfair as you want to. It's up to the two of you.


You do know you already lost the argument... right? When you said a marriage is defined as .... your wrong because the crux of this thread was and is the forced changing of a contract by a supposed impartial. Aka a judge. By doing so what's to stop other changes. To the point of making a mockery of the original contract. &#9786;


----------



## kuriakos

MoonRiver said:


> I know Davis is a Democrat. It's a shame the other elected Democrats in Kentucky are throwing her to the wolves. I don't understand what they hope to get out of this. The governor and attorney general could probably resolve this pretty easily. Call in the legislature if necessary.
> 
> You can post as many times as you like that deputy clerks have all the authority they need to issue a license, but Kentucky is going to have to decide this.


Kentucky already decided it. They may have to clarify to remove any room for these arguments, but I don't expect them to be in any big hurry to help out a woman who refuses to do her job. It would be nice if they removed her from office quickly, but it's not an emergency so there's no good reason to call the legislature back. It would cost the state over $30,000 in salary to bring them back for just one day. Not worth it.


----------



## Raeven

stanb999 said:


> You do know you already lost the argument... right? When you said a marriage is defined as .... your wrong because the crux of this thread was and is the forced changing of a contract by a supposed impartial. Aka a judge. By doing so what's to stop other changes. To the point of making a mockery of the original contract. &#9786;


Huh? Sorry; unintelligible.


----------



## Nevada

Raeven said:


> A marriage license legitimizes your union so that in the event it fails, you may apply to the courts in whatever state you reside for a determination of a fair division of property, visitation rights, etc., etc. Each state may determine what sorts of rights you may have; e.g., community property state v. equitable distribution state. Your marriage is recognized as legitimate even if you move to a different state and that state becomes the venue for your divorce (assuming you get one).
> 
> You don't have to avail yourself of the enforcement if you don't need it or want it.
> 
> You don't have to obtain a marriage license to consider yourself married -- unless you want to claim the right to ask the courts to assist in making an equitable agreement as to the issues stated above.
> 
> That's all a marriage license does. However, if you obtain a marriage license, then get a divorce and either of you asks for the court's protection, then you are entitled to it, within the laws of the state in which the action is filed.
> 
> If you divorce but are able to reach an agreement between the two of you, that's fine with the court and the state. In fact, they prefer that you do that. Under such circumstances, you can make your agreement as fair or unfair as you want to. It's up to the two of you.


Marriage is not necessary for property division in the event of separation. We see high profile cases like that in Hollywood with some regularity. Marriage is also not necessary for a child support award. Those issues are decided independent of marriage.

Marriage is a license, issued by the the government, that allows a married couple to function as a single entity (the marital community) for business transactions. Marriage also entitles you to certain benefits that could never be created with a private contract, such as filing joint income tax returns, inheriting property from a spouse tax-free, and inheriting Social Security & Medicare benefits from a spouse.

If you don't believe me, try telling the Social Security office that you have a private contract that says you can inherit your dead friend's Social Security and see what they tell you.


----------



## MoonRiver

kuriakos said:


> Kentucky already decided it. They may have to clarify to remove any room for these arguments, but I don't expect them to be in any big hurry to help out a woman who refuses to do her job. It would be nice if they removed her from office quickly, but it's not an emergency so there's no good reason to call the legislature back. It would cost the state over $30,000 in salary to bring them back for just one day. Not worth it.


And what if the marriage licenses prove to be unauthorized/invalid? The state has an obligation to either state these licenses are legal or take action to make them such. It might take a court to make it happen. If I was gay and applying for a marriage license in Kentucky, I would go to a different county just to be sure I had a valid license.


----------



## Raeven

Nevada said:


> Marriage is not necessary for property division in the event of separation. We see high profile cases like that in Hollywood with some regularity. Marriage is also not necessary for a child support award. Those issues are decided independent of marriage.
> 
> Marriage is a license, issued by the the government, that allows a married couple to function as a single entity (the marital community) for business transactions. Marriage also entitles you to certain benefits that could never be created with a private contract, such as filing joint income tax returns, inheriting property from a spouse tax-free, and inheriting Social Security & Medicare benefits from a spouse.
> 
> If you don't believe me, try telling the Social Security office that you have a private contract that says you can inherit your dead friend's Social Security and see what they tell you.


Uhhh, I pointed all that out, Nevada. You need to re-read my response.


----------



## Nevada

MoonRiver said:


> And what if the marriage licenses prove to be unauthorized/invalid? The state has an obligation to either state these licenses are legal or take action to make them such. It might take a court to make it happen. If I was gay and applying for a marriage license in Kentucky, I would go to a different county just to be sure I had a valid license.


I haven't heard anyone suggest that the marriages might not be valid except Kim Davis and her lawyer. I think they're grasping at straws to keep her relevant.


----------



## Nevada

Raeven said:


> Uhhh, I pointed all that out, Nevada. You need to re-read my response.


Oops! I quoted the wrong post.

No matter. Nobody pay attention to my posts anyway.


----------



## Evons hubby

Raeven said:


> You'll certainly find them if you ever go to court for a divorce. However, in your case, I'm pretty sure you'll never encounter that.


Oh yeah, btdt, got the Tshirt twice! Like you I am pretty sure I won't experience it again.


----------



## Raeven

Nevada said:


> Oops! I quoted the wrong post.


You are quite right, of course, regarding marriage entitling people to many other privileges that we hetero folk take for granted every single day. I was responding in particular to a stanb999 rabbit hole in discussing the way the courts look at marriage when one comes to an end. But as I pointed out, parties can decide their issues for themselves entirely -- with or without the court's assistance, if they so choose.


----------



## stanb999

Raeven said:


> Huh? Sorry; unintelligible.


Lol... where you stated marriage is defined as a union between two people. That is a new meaning. It was defined as a union between a man and a woman. So if government can change the defination. What's to stop future changes?


P.s. please attempt to follow the conversation. It really isn't difficult.


----------



## Nevada

stanb999 said:


> Lol... where you stated marriage is defined as a union between two people. That is a new meaning. It was defined as a union between a man and a woman. So if government can change the defination. What's to stop future changes?


Actually, it was defined in the Bible as a union between a man and as many wives as he could afford, but it's unclear exactly how people became married.


----------



## Raeven

stanb999 said:


> Lol... where you stated marriage is defined as a union between two people. That is a new meaning. It was defined as a union between a man and a woman. So if government can change the defination. What's to stop future changes?
> 
> 
> P.s. please attempt to follow the conversation. It really isn't difficult.


 You seem unable to draw the following distinctions:

1) That the state courts no longer have the authority to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court did that when they ruled in favor of gay marriage. Will they rule in future to define it further? Who knows? This seems important to you, but it isn't important to me.

2) State courts retain the authority to decide issues of contention between married parties should they decide to dissolve their marriage. Whether the parties are of different or same sex is immaterial to the discussion now.

3) The jailed clerk is jailed because she attempted to usurp the authority of the government to impose her personal religious beliefs on people against whom she discriminates and who came into her office to obtain a marriage license. As a result, the ACLU filed an action in federal court to summon her to show cause why she was in violation of the Supreme Courtâs ruling. The federal court was required to hear that action irrespective of whether the State of Kentucky chose to act or not. The federal court found no good basis for her refusal to carry out the letter of the law â which is her entire job. The federal court therefore found her in contempt of the Supreme Court's ruling. The federal court then offered a compromise position which allowed her to personally avoid issuing marriage licenses. She refused. So jail it is.

4) I havenât âlostâ any argument. Iâm simply pointing out facts, which you can choose to believe or not. However, the smart money is on accepting facts as they are shown to be. You may not agree with the rulings, but they are what they are. Pursue your remedies, whatever you think those may be.


----------



## wiscto

stanb999 said:


> Lol... where you stated marriage is defined as a union between two people. That is a new meaning. It was defined as a union between a man and a woman. So if government can change the defination. What's to stop future changes?
> 
> 
> P.s. please attempt to follow the conversation. It really isn't difficult.


If a government has the right to define it in the first place, the people have the right to change the definition. The people can also decide that a marriage between two people was an inalienable right in the first place, that no government has the right to deny. You know that. You just don't like the outcome so you're going to cry foul.


----------



## stanb999

wiscto said:


> If a government has the right to define it in the first place, the people have the right to change the definition. The people can also decide that a marriage between two people was an inalienable right in the first place, that no government has the right to deny. You know that. You just don't like the outcome so you're going to cry foul.


I'm not apposed to gay marriage.... I'm apposed to marriage licenses. You should not need a licence to live as you wish. Marriage license were instituted to keep the races from mixing. The rest of the mumbo jumbo is grease for the gears of politics.


----------



## stanb999

Raeven said:


> You seem unable to draw the following distinctions:
> 
> 1) That the state courts no longer have the authority to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The Supreme Court did that when they ruled in favor of gay marriage. Will they rule in future to define it further? Who knows? This seems important to you, but it isn't important to me.
> 
> 2) State courts retain the authority to decide issues of contention between married parties should they decide to dissolve their marriage. Whether the parties are of different or same sex is immaterial to the discussion now.
> 
> 3) The jailed clerk is jailed because she attempted to usurp the authority of the government to impose her personal religious beliefs on people against whom she discriminates and who came into her office to obtain a marriage license. As a result, the ACLU filed an action in federal court to summon her to show cause why she was in violation of the Supreme Courtâs ruling. The federal court was required to hear that action irrespective of whether the State of Kentucky chose to act or not. The federal court found no good basis for her refusal to carry out the letter of the law â which is her entire job. The federal court therefore found her in contempt of the Supreme Court's ruling. The federal court then offered a compromise position which allowed her to personally avoid issuing marriage licenses. She refused. So jail it is.
> 
> 4) I havenât âlostâ any argument. Iâm simply pointing out facts, which you can choose to believe or not. However, the smart money is on accepting facts as they are shown to be. You may not agree with the rulings, but they are what they are. Pursue your remedies, whatever you think those may be.


The states have the athority of the people... should they choose to exercise it. Up to and including open combat. Why do you feel a group of 7 should decide much of anything in a republic of 300 million. It is abhorrent.


----------



## wiscto

stanb999 said:


> I'm not apposed to gay marriage.... I'm apposed to marriage licenses. You should not need a licence to live as you wish. Marriage license were instituted to keep the races from mixing. The rest of the mumbo jumbo is grease for the gears of politics.


Everybody has their own conspiracy theory... There has to be some kind of system in place to make sure people aren't being taken advantage of, but I agree that a license is absolutely ridiculous in the first place.


----------



## arabian knight

She's obviously not a person who quits. She's making a statement by going to jail. If she were to lose her life over this issue she'd be a martyr. We need more people like Kim Davis.


----------



## stanb999

wiscto said:


> Everybody has their own conspiracy theory... There has to be some kind of system in place to make sure people aren't being taken advantage of, but I agree that a license is absolutely ridiculous in the first place.


Look into the orgins... you will find the truth. It's not a conspiracy, it goes back to segragation.


----------



## wiscto

arabian knight said:


> She's obviously not a person who quits. She's making a statement by going to jail. If she were to lose her life over this issue she'd be a martyr. We need more people like Kim Davis.


Yup. You support government intrusion into people's lives. A government official paid for by ALL tax payers regardless of THEIR belief systems. 

You know what? I'm going to refuse to pay taxes until Kim Davis is deported to the Russian base in Antarctica, because she is violating my personal beliefs by requiring tax payers to pay her salary while she refuses to fulfill the government's duty...which is to act in accordance with the law without discrimination or personal motives.


----------



## wiscto

I don't know how many different ways we have to pound it into your skulls that she doesn't have the same rights as a GOVERNMENT employee. She represents the government. We all have to pay her salary through our taxes regardless of our religious beliefs. That is not true of an airline, a restaurant, or anyplace else in the private sector. This woman has NO legal right to refuse to do the job of a government that is funded by ALL people of ALL beliefs to do a job for ALL people of ALL beliefs.


----------



## Raeven

stanb999 said:


> The states have the athority of the people... should they choose to exercise it. Up to and including open combat. Why do you feel a group of 7 should decide much of anything in a republic of 300 million. It is abhorrent.


I don't know why you even think you have a dog in this fight, stan. No one is holding a gun to your head requiring you to get a marriage license. You want to get married without one? Go ahead. No one is stopping you. Go write your contract and have a marriage ceremony sans license. Just the way you want it.

Or yes, go see if you can convince enough of your fellow citizens to rise up against the courts, combat ready, to abolish marriage licenses. Should make an amusing Cliven Bundy moment on the news.


----------



## Nevada

stanb999 said:


> I'm not apposed to gay marriage.... I'm apposed to marriage licenses. You should not need a licence to live as you wish. Marriage license were instituted to keep the races from mixing. The rest of the mumbo jumbo is grease for the gears of politics.


Many government benefits are tied to marriage, so the government has to regulate marriage to keep benefits under control. People aren't going to sit still for those benefits going away, and the government isn't going to give up regulating marriage. We're kind of stuck with it.


----------



## stanb999

Nevada said:


> Many government benefits are tied to marriage, so the government has to regulate marriage to keep benefits under control. People aren't going to sit still for those benefits going away, and the government isn't going to give up regulating marriage. We're kind of stuck with it.


Thank you for proving my point to raeven. &#9786;


----------



## Bearfootfarm

stanb999 said:


> You do know you already lost the argument... right? When you said a marriage is defined as .... your wrong because *the crux of this thread was and is the forced changing of a contract by a supposed impartial*. Aka a judge. By doing so what's to stop other changes. To the point of making a mockery of the original contract. &#9786;


Are you reading the same thread as everyone else?
I haven't seen anything that even remotely resembles what you described


----------



## stanb999

Bearfootfarm said:


> Are you reading the same thread as everyone else?
> I haven't seen anything that even remotely resembles what you described


It's about a woman defending the old unchanged meaning of marriage.... or did ou miss that. &#128514;


----------



## Raeven

Nevada said:


> Many government benefits are tied to marriage, so the government has to regulate marriage to keep benefits under control. People aren't going to sit still for those benefits going away, and the government isn't going to give up regulating marriage. We're kind of stuck with it.


Yes, Nevada. Thanks for setting me straight.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> She's obviously not a person who quits. *She's making a statement by going to jail*. If she were to lose her life over this issue she'd be a martyr. We need more people like Kim Davis.


Her statement seems to be: "I'm not too smart"
She'll come to realize that when she loses her $80,000 per year job


----------



## Bearfootfarm

stanb999 said:


> It's about a woman defending the old unchanged meaning of marriage.... or did ou miss that. &#128514;


That's not her job, and isn't what the thread is about.
It's about a women refusing to do her job because she wants others to follow her personal rules


----------



## stanb999

Raeven said:


> Yes, Nevada. Thanks for setting me straight.


You don't get it do you... 80% of the people wanted equal treatment for gays. The courts have pushed the envelope. More simply.. so you can understand. Public opinion in the US has always been a pendum. Swinging left and right. One day in the not so distant future a new group will be in charge. They will use your present power grab as an excuse to impliment their agenda. It could land you lib ladies in a burka. 


Your bravado in the open abolishing of the rule of law is astonishing... and typilce of the myopic.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MoonRiver said:


> And *what if *the marriage licenses prove to be unauthorized/invalid? The state has an obligation to either state these licenses are legal or take action to make them such. It might take a court to make it happen. If I was gay and applying for a marriage license in Kentucky, I would go to a different county just to be sure I had a valid license.


They are clearly not "unauthorized/invalid", since the statute (which you've seen) say "clerk *OR* Deputy"

There are no "what if's" about the statute


----------



## Raeven

Post 357:



stanb999 said:


> As a libertarian atheist I just don't see the the argument on both sides. It's frankly ridiculous.
> 
> So if the building inspector refuses to approve a new church because they are Muslim it's all good? It would be against his religion to allow an expansion of Christianity after all.
> 
> Shouldn't people who love each other just ... love with out permission from "the man"?
> 
> 
> IMHO, It has nothing to do with the clerk. It's not like she has some greater responsibility in the transaction that checking the paperwork. She has an aversion to see two male names on a birth cert in a row? Does she feel that she her self approves the marriages? Like blesses then or something?
> 
> Can someone explain with logic where this is anything more than just failing to do your job?
> 
> If it's just failing to do your job you should lose your job not go to jail. Can some explain with logic why this woman is in jail.
> 
> 
> logic only, no "feelings", "beliefs", or notions,



Post 495:



stanb999 said:


> It's about a woman defending the old unchanged meaning of marriage.... or did ou miss that. &#128514;



Stan doesn't seem able to figure out which side of this argument he's on.


----------



## stanb999

Raeven said:


> Post 357:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post 495:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stan doesn't seem able to figure out which side of this argument he's on.


So indicate which side... lol simple folks can only see their point of view. Others can empthize with others and respect the view of others regardless if they agree.

Or more simply.... respect various world veiws. Myopic navel gazing can limit ones point of veiw.


----------



## kuriakos

MoonRiver said:


> And what if the marriage licenses prove to be unauthorized/invalid? The state has an obligation to either state these licenses are legal or take action to make them such. It might take a court to make it happen. If I was gay and applying for a marriage license in Kentucky, I would go to a different county just to be sure I had a valid license.


It may end up being an issue somewhere down the line. It likely will not be. The mere act of getting the license indicates the intent to be bound by the terms of marriage in the state, which is plenty in my educated opinion. These licenses will never face a realistic dispute. It's possible one party in a marriage may try to use that argument to dissolve the marriage without a divorce, but their signing of the license (even if said license is technically invalid) is enough to render that argument moot. It won't fly.


----------



## MoonRiver

For all those who say my interpretation of the relevant state law is wrong, please read article at this link. One of the top lawyers in the country seems to agree with me. 

Here's one point from the article that most seemed to have gotten wrong.



> 5. The rule *rejects the &#8220;you don&#8217;t like the job requirements, so quit the job&#8221;* argument. Again, that argument is a perfectly sensible policy argument against having a Title VII duty of religious accommodation. It&#8217;s just an argument that religious accommodation law has, rightly or wrongly, rejected.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/


----------



## farmrbrown

MoonRiver said:


> For all those who say my interpretation of the relevant state law is wrong, please read article at this link. One of the top lawyers in the country seems to agree with me.
> 
> Here's one point from the article that most seemed to have gotten wrong.


Thanks for that post. There was quite a bit of legal work in it and I didn't know that Davis agreed to a let the licenses be issued without her name on them, and that also wouldn't require any action by the KY legislature to do it.


----------



## poppy

Once you get past the legal mumbo jumbo and nuances in the law, it all boils down to one fact. A US citizens sits in jail without bail for refusing to violate her religious convictions. Other Christians have been bankrupted and fined for refusing to violate their religious convictions. They never harmed anyone or denied them something they couldn't get elsewhere. Religious persecution of Christians has been instituted by law in this country and it will only get worse. Watch and see.


----------



## Jim Bunton

poppy said:


> Once you get past the legal mumbo jumbo and nuances in the law, it all boils down to one fact. A US citizens sits in jail without bail for refusing to violate her religious convictions. Other Christians have been bankrupted and fined for refusing to violate their religious convictions. They never harmed anyone or denied them something they couldn't get elsewhere. Religious persecution of Christians has been instituted by law in this country and it will only get worse. Watch and see.


What religious conviction is she being asked to violate? No one is making her marry a woman. According to the Bible God gave us free will. Why would he do that if he did not want us to make our own choice when it came to who we married? 

Jim


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Originally Posted by MoonRiver View Post
> For all those who say *my interpretation of the relevant state law is wrong*, please read article at this link. One of the top lawyers in the country *seems to agree with me*.


LOL
I could have sworn you said you weren't going to mention that again until some court made a decision. 
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/general-chat/542979-another-employee-religious-objection-3.html



> This is the last time I'm saying it or debating it. I'll wait for a court to decide.


From your source:


> But in any event, if Davis has a federal constitutional duty to issue marriage licenses, *she wouldn&#8217;t be able to get a religious exemption from that duty*, and decline to issue such licenses at all &#8212; denying County residents their constitutional right would certainly be an &#8220;undue hardship&#8221; imposed on the County and its citizens, and requiring her to comply with the Constitution would be the least restrictive means of serving the compelling interest in protecting citizens&#8217; constitutional rights.


All he seems to be saying is she *may* have some legal options to pursue in state courts to get an exemption. He did NOT say what she has done so far is legal.

He also does NOT say her signature is required, as you keep insisting, so he's really not "agreeing with you" on that point.


----------



## kuriakos

MoonRiver said:


> For all those who say my interpretation of the relevant state law is wrong, please read article at this link. One of the top lawyers in the country seems to agree with me.
> 
> Here's one point from the article that most seemed to have gotten wrong.


Yes, removing her name from the form would be a reasonable accommodation, but the federal court doesn't have jurisdiction over that form (yet). If it gets to federal court, that's probably what they will do. At this point, it's up to the state to do that or not do it, as you have pointed out repeatedly with your lists of Democrats. The state did not put her in jail, though, so the state cannot let her out of jail. She's dealing with two different jurisdictions.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> For all those who say my interpretation of the relevant state law is wrong, please read article at this link. One of the top lawyers in the country seems to agree with me.
> 
> Here's one point from the article that most seemed to have gotten wrong.


This article while an interesting read really says nothing beyond "a case can be made using this that and the other arguments". Typical lawyer speak. I didn't find any reference to the relevant ky statute previously hashed and rehashed that quite plainly state that the deputy clerks can legally perform these functions with or without the clerks ok.


----------



## poppy

Jim Bunton said:


> What religious conviction is she being asked to violate? No one is making her marry a woman. According to the Bible God gave us free will. Why would he do that if he did not want us to make our own chose when it came to who we married?
> 
> Jim


Her conviction likely stems from the NT teaching that says if someone is committing a sin and you so much as wish them Godspeed (AKA goodluck ), you become a partaker of their evil deed. Signing a form permitting them to sin(in her eyes) goes much further than saying good luck. Her views certainly are not everyone's views but we are supposed to have religious freedom in this country. Even the gays who brought the suit did not want her put in jail, merely fined. Of course, they had their own motive in that they did not want her to be seen as a martyr for her religious beliefs. Being in her shoes, I would have just resigned but then again I don't know her financial situation. Still, it is a sign of the times that she is in prison without bail for her religious beliefs while criminals, often violent ones, generally get bail.


----------



## Nevada

poppy said:


> Signing a form permitting them to sin(in her eyes) goes much further than saying good luck.


Turns out that she doesn't need to sign the licenses. She's upset because the license names her as county clerk. She wants her name removed from the license.


----------



## Evons hubby

poppy said:


> Her conviction likely stems from the NT teaching that says if someone is committing a sin and you so much as wish them Godspeed (AKA goodluck ), you become a partaker of their evil deed. Signing a form permitting them to sin(in her eyes) goes much further than saying good luck. Her views certainly are not everyone's views but we are supposed to have religious freedom in this country. Even the gays who brought the suit did not want her put in jail, merely fined. Of course, they had their own motive in that they did not want her to be seen as a martyr for her religious beliefs. Being in her shoes, I would have just resigned but then again I don't know her financial situation. Still, it is a sign of the times that she is in prison without bail for her religious beliefs while criminals, often violent ones, generally get bail.


She is not being held awaiting trial, that's where bail comes in. She is in jail as penalty for contempt of court, aka not following the judges orders.


----------



## arabian knight

Kentucky law requires the county clerk to issue the marriage licenses â and with a truly interesting caveat:










As Gov. Steve Beshear said in a statement on Tuesday, âThe legislature has placed the authority to issue marriage licenses squarely on county clerks by statute, and I have no legal authority to relieve her of her statutory duty by executive order or to remove her from office.â


----------



## Evons hubby

arabian knight said:


> Kentucky law requires the county clerk to issue the marriage licenses â and with a truly interesting caveat:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Gov. Steve Beshear said in a statement on Tuesday, âThe legislature has placed the authority to issue marriage licenses squarely on county clerks by statute, and I have no legal authority to relieve her of her statutory duty by executive order or to remove her from office.â


If you go back to page 16 in this tread a more current version of this statute was brought forward as well as a link. That version includes the "or deputy clerk" language that is quite important to this discussion.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

poppy said:


> Her conviction likely stems from the NT teaching that says if someone is committing a sin and you so much as wish them Godspeed (AKA goodluck ), you become a partaker of their evil deed. *Signing a form* permitting them to sin(in her eyes) goes much further than saying good luck. Her views certainly are not everyone's views but we are supposed to have religious freedom in this country. Even the gays who brought the suit did not want her put in jail, merely fined. Of course, they had their own motive in that they did not want her to be seen as a martyr for her religious beliefs. Being in her shoes, I would have just resigned but then again I don't know her financial situation. Still, it is a sign of the times that she is in prison *without bail *for her religious beliefs while criminals, often violent ones, generally *get bail*.


You get "bail" when you've been arrested and charged with a crime and are awaiting trial.

Davis has already been found guilty of the crime of "contempt" and is serving the sentence, for which there is no bail. 

She wasn't required to sign the marriage license, and only had to sign a form afterward saying it was recorded in the County records.

She didn't even have to have any contact with the couples at all


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> Kentucky law requires the county clerk to issue the marriage licenses &#8212; and with a truly interesting caveat:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Gov. Steve Beshear said in a statement on Tuesday, &#8220;The legislature has placed the authority to issue marriage licenses squarely on county clerks by statute, and I have no legal authority to relieve her of her statutory duty by executive order or to remove her from office.&#8221;


You're using the outdated version of the statute

The current statute is 402.100, effective July 12, 2006:

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36475

The Gov's statement is correct in that he cannot remove her from office.

That's not saying she shouldn't be removed, but only the legislature has that power and they are not in session

The Deputy clerks are "county clerks" also


----------



## Jim Bunton

poppy said:


> Her conviction likely stems from the NT teaching that says if someone is committing a sin and you so much as wish them Godspeed (AKA goodluck ), you become a partaker of their evil deed. Signing a form permitting them to sin(in her eyes) goes much further than saying good luck. Her views certainly are not everyone's views but we are supposed to have religious freedom in this country. Even the gays who brought the suit did not want her put in jail, merely fined. Of course, they had their own motive in that they did not want her to be seen as a martyr for her religious beliefs. Being in her shoes, I would have just resigned but then again I don't know her financial situation. Still, it is a sign of the times that she is in prison without bail for her religious beliefs while criminals, often violent ones, generally get bail.


She is in jail for defying a court order. Bail comes before the judge sentences you. she has been sentenced.

Jim


----------



## MoonRiver

Jim Bunton said:


> What religious conviction is she being asked to violate? No one is making her marry a woman. According to the Bible God gave us free will. Why would he do that if he did not want us to make our own chose when it came to who we married?
> 
> Jim


Sorry. I'd just be repeating myself and that would be pointless.
Deleted post.


----------



## MoonRiver

Bearfootfarm said:


> LOL
> I could have sworn you said you weren't going to mention that again until some court made a decision.
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/general-chat/542979-another-employee-religious-objection-3.html
> From your source:
> 
> All he seems to be saying is she *may* have some legal options to pursue in state courts to get an exemption. He did NOT say what she has done so far is legal.
> 
> He also does NOT say her signature is required, as you keep insisting, so he's really not "agreeing you" on that point.


Straw man. Like I said, I'm done arguing. Bringing an article written by a noted scholar to the discussion is not debating, but adding value and perspective. Make of the article what you will.


----------



## mmoetc

farmrbrown said:


> How long? Maybe another 6 months, that's when KY legislature comes back in session or a recall election could be held.
> 
> As far as the Irish Proverb.......sorry, that's just the way we are.
> Why do you think we were sought after by the British to be on their front lines?
> What? How many? How big are they?
> ound:ound:ound:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the EEOC laws cover a lot of government employees as well.
> Sorry about that, but as we've been told repeatedly, the law is the law.
> How 'bout that?
> 
> 
> 
> That depends I guess, if you're working for Him or not.


If I knew with certainty that anyone was guaranteed six more months you might sway me. But I know how fleeting life can be and how long the battle has already been. Preaching patience is easy when it's not you waiting and being denied.

You missed my point on the Irish proverb.

If this woman has an EEOC complaint she should file it. Refusing to do her job isn't the proper way to follow that law. Even while that complaint is being litigated gay couples need to be able to get licenses in this office. Accomodations cannot be overly burdensome to the company and keep the company, in this case the government, from doing its regular business. The clerk has promised to continue to interfere with this business if released. That's why she's jailed.


----------



## Evons hubby

MoonRiver said:


> Straw man. Like I said, I'm done arguing. Bringing an article written by a noted scholar to the discussion is not debating, but adding value and perspective. Make of the article what you will.


It's too slick for toilet paper, think I will make fire starter of it.


----------



## Cornhusker

Apparently the law isn't applied to everyone.
If you are a gay, black, female judge, you can refuse to do your job and still not get tossed in jail
This was a couple years ago, but the same laws should apply
Double standard?
Hypocrisy?
All of the above?
Yes


----------



## Jim Bunton

I'm sure you see a big difference other then the ones you listed. 

Jim


----------



## wiscto

Cornhusker said:


> Apparently the law isn't applied to everyone.
> If you are a gay, black, female judge, you can refuse to do your job and still not get tossed in jail
> This was a couple years ago, but the same laws should apply
> Double standard?
> Hypocrisy?
> All of the above?
> Yes


How is it a double standard? Was it in the same court? Was it in the same county? Did all the same people take the same sides of the argument? I don't agree with her, but it looks like she passed those jobs on to judges who were willing to do it, and therefore no ones rights were impeded by her actions. Looks like it isn't really comparable.


----------



## Evons hubby

Cornhusker said:


> Apparently the law isn't applied to everyone.
> If you are a gay, black, female judge, you can refuse to do your job and still not get tossed in jail
> This was a couple years ago, but the same laws should apply
> Double standard?
> Hypocrisy?
> All of the above?
> Yes


No double standard here, this judge was ahead of her time. She refused to perform any marriage ceremonies at all. Well within her legal bounds. She was not discrimating against any group.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> Apparently the law isn't applied to everyone.
> If you are a gay, black, female judge, you can refuse to do your job and still not get tossed in jail
> This was a couple years ago, but the same laws should apply
> Double standard?
> Hypocrisy?
> All of the above?
> Yes


Judges have no *obligation* to perform weddings for anyone.
It's not comparable to Kim Davis at all


----------



## wiscto

poppy said:


> Once you get past the legal mumbo jumbo and nuances in the law, it all boils down to one fact. A US citizens sits in jail without bail for refusing to violate her religious convictions. Other Christians have been bankrupted and fined for refusing to violate their religious convictions. They never harmed anyone or denied them something they couldn't get elsewhere. Religious persecution of Christians has been instituted by law in this country and it will only get worse. Watch and see.


The martyr complex runs deep in Christians... Of course none of you would consider anything you've done, through the use of government (unconstitutionally), to be persecution. But now you're the victims. Cry me a river.

And this woman isn't an employee at a Starbucks. Her position is paid for by people who have to pay taxes *regardless of their religious beliefs*; they can't get around it, they are required to pay taxes so that the government can provide these services. So they are paying her salary r*egardless of whether or not they agree with her religious beliefs*, to do a duty that she should do* regardless of her religious beliefs*, because her job as the government representative, is to do her duty *for all citizens regardless of their religious beliefs*. Because that is what the government must do. She persecuted them, not the other way around. She's a bigot. What does that mean for you if you're on her side?


----------



## Cornhusker

wiscto said:


> How is it a double standard? Was it in the same court? Was it in the same county? Did all the same people take the same sides of the argument? I don't agree with her, but it looks like she passed those jobs on to judges who were willing to do it, and therefore no ones rights were impeded by her actions. Looks like it isn't really comparable.


Ok
It's wrong to stick to your religious principles, but it's OK to stick by your gay agenda.
Unless your religion is muslim, then you can stick to that and the left will defend your rights
This Obamanation is a sick place


----------



## Cornhusker

wiscto said:


> The martyr complex runs deep in Christians... Of course none of you would consider anything you've done, through the use of government (unconstitutionally), to be persecution. But now you're the victims. Cry me a river.
> 
> And this woman isn't an employee at a Starbucks. Her position is paid for by people who have to pay taxes *regardless of their religious beliefs*; they can't get around it, they are required to pay taxes so that the government can provide these services. So they are paying her salary r*egardless of whether or not they agree with her religious beliefs*, to do a duty that she should do* regardless of her religious beliefs*, because her job as the government representative, is to do her duty *for all citizens regardless of their religious beliefs*. Because that is what the government must do. She persecuted them, not the other way around. She's a bigot. What does that mean for you if you're on her side?


The bully, squash the rights of those you disagree with agenda of hatred runs deep in the left.


----------



## wiscto

Cornhusker said:


> The bully, squash the rights of those you disagree with agenda of hatred runs deep in the left.


You're accusing me of what I just accused her of. Whose rights are being squashed here? These people all paid their taxes because they had no choice. They're being forced to pay for a woman who is choosing not to do her GOVERNMENT job on religious grounds. She also refused to allow other people to do her job for her. She's nothing more than a BULLY attempting to squash the rights of those she disagrees with, and she's a bully paid for by THEIR taxes.


----------



## Cornhusker

wiscto said:


> You're accusing me of what I just accused her of. Whose rights are being squashed here? These people all paid their taxes because they had no choice. They're being forced to pay for a woman who is choosing not to do her GOVERNMENT job on religious grounds. She also refused to allow other people to do her job for her. She's nothing more than a BULLY attempting to squash the rights of those she disagrees with, and she's a bully paid for by THEIR taxes.


And yet you defend a bully that's spreading her agenda of hatred, and you defend the muslims who won't go against their faith
When's the next gay wedding an a mosque?
Oh, there won't be one, liberals are cowards and won't try to push that one LOL
At least you guys are consistent, you love a bully as long as it's your bully.
Both are guilty, only one went to jail


----------



## wiscto

Cornhusker said:


> Ok
> It's wrong to stick to your religious principles, but it's OK to stick by your gay agenda.
> Unless your religion is muslim, then you can stick to that and the left will defend your rights
> This Obamanation is a sick place


One judge refusing to officiate a wedding did not interfere with their plans. People may have disagreed with her, but she is far from the only person who can execute these duties, and she made no effort to interfere.

One clerk refusing to issue a wedding license and refusing to allow deputy clerks to issue a license DID INTERFERE WITH TAX PAYERS RIGHT TO MARRY. Tax payers. Need me to say it again? They all have to pay her salary, regardless of THEIR religious beliefs. They're paying to have their rights interfered with. She's using her authority maliciously.


----------



## wiscto

Cornhusker said:


> And yet you defend a bully that's spreading her agenda of hatred, and you defend the muslims who won't go against their faith
> When's the next gay wedding an a mosque?
> Oh, there won't be one, liberals are cowards and won't try to push that one LOL
> At least you guys are consistent, you love a bully as long as it's your bully.
> Both are guilty, only one went to jail


What the #[email protected]# are you talking about? When did I defend any of this? I didn't. You're just generalizing. AS ALWAYS. Point to one Christian church and tell me they were forced to participate and facilitate a gay wedding. Show me. And then show me where I defended that, even though I'm vehemently against it.


----------



## Cornhusker

wiscto said:


> One judge refusing to officiate a wedding did not interfere with their plans. People may have disagreed with her, but she is far from the only person who can execute these duties, and she made no effort to interfere.
> 
> One clerk refusing to issue a wedding license and refusing to allow deputy clerks to issue a license DID INTERFERE WITH TAX PAYERS RIGHT TO MARRY. Tax payers. Need me to say it again? They all have to pay her salary, regardless of THEIR religious beliefs. They're paying to have their rights interfered with. She's using her authority maliciously.


So you admit the garbage against the bakery is bogus?
After all, others can bake a cake?
See the leftist double standard yet?


----------



## Cornhusker

wiscto said:


> What the #[email protected]# are you talking about? When did I defend any of this? I didn't. You're just generalizing. AS ALWAYS. Point to one Christian church and tell me they were forced to participate and facilitate a gay wedding. Show me. And then show me where I defended that, even though I'm vehemently against it.


You are against gay weddings?
Or forcing them on a church or bakery?


----------



## wiscto

Cornhusker said:


> You are against gay weddings?
> Or forcing them on a church or bakery?


Forcing them on a church. And that was some fancy footwork there, but whether you like it or not, a church and a privately owned bakery are no the same things. I didn't agree with forcing him either, although, creating a society in which we all pick and choose who we deny our services to is dangerous to our society...and that's a fact.


----------



## wiscto

And for your information... Kim Davis is not there to provide a service to those people, she is there to provide a service to the GOVERNMENT to help them keep track of people who are doing something within their RIGHTS. She isn't a baker providing a service to those who choose to go to her. She's a door they must walk through to do what is within their RIGHT to do. And the pay her taxes regardless of their political, religious, philosophical beliefs. What if she were a FEMA official handing out clean water to families? Is this what you want from government officials?


----------



## Evons hubby

Cornhusker said:


> Ok
> It's wrong to stick to your religious principles, but it's OK to stick by your gay agenda.
> Unless your religion is muslim, then you can stick to that and the left will defend your rights
> This Obamanation is a sick place


By all means stick to your religious principles! Just don't force others to convert to your religion. Does the term Isis ring a bell?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Cornhusker said:


> So you admit the garbage against the bakery is bogus?
> After all, others can bake a cake?
> See the leftist double standard yet?


All I see is the same tired rhetoric and name calling as always, while ignoring the facts of the individual cases you keep referring to.


----------



## Evons hubby

Cornhusker said:


> So you admit the garbage against the bakery is bogus?
> After all, others can bake a cake?
> See the leftist double standard yet?


Again no double standard, neither the baker nor the clerk have a right to discriminate. They can march in public and preach their bigotry all they want in their free time, but they are not allowed to practice it in their workplace. Very much as both are finding out.


----------



## farmrbrown

wiscto said:


> What the #[email protected]# are you talking about? When did I defend any of this? I didn't. You're just generalizing. AS ALWAYS. Point to one Christian church and tell me they were forced to participate and facilitate a gay wedding. Show me. And then show me where I defended that, even though I'm vehemently against it.



I believe you when you say you're against forcing a church to perform a gay wedding ceremony.
But in response to the challenge to show you where this has been done, does it have to be in this country?


----------



## wr

farmrbrown said:


> I believe you when you say you're against forcing a church to perform a gay wedding ceremony.
> 
> But in response to the challenge to show you where this has been done, does it have to be in this country?



If it happened in another country, how does it affect US laws?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

This country is what is being discussed, but go ahead and tell us about Denmark if it makes you happy


----------



## farmrbrown

That's very good!
Don't forget about England.
But what happens in other countries does have a ripple effect.
I wonder if that had anything to do with the SCOTUS decision that came earlier this year?


----------



## Evons hubby

farmrbrown said:


> That's very good!
> Don't forget about England.
> But what happens in other countries does have a ripple effect.
> I wonder if that had anything to do with the SCOTUS decision that came earlier this year?


I doubt it. As near as I have been able to tell our supremes have a method to coming up with their rulings. They take turns throwing darts at a large copy of our constitution they keep hanging on a wall in the back room. If the dart lands and sticks, they create a ruling based on the phrase nearest the dart, if the dart glances off they freelance their ruling as they see fit. In their recent ruling about same sex marriage, the dart obviously stuck near the fourteenth amendment where the phrase "equal protection under the law" is. What luck eh!


----------



## Bearfootfarm

farmrbrown said:


> That's very good!
> Don't forget about England.
> But what happens in other countries does have a ripple effect.
> I wonder if that had anything to do with the SCOTUS decision that came earlier this year?


Some churches have gay ministers, so doing gay weddings shouldn't bother them.

I doubt other countries base their decisions on anything that happens here

In the end it will be up to out courts to decide what happens here if suits are filed


----------



## greg273

Cornhusker said:


> So you admit the garbage against the bakery is bogus?
> After all, others can bake a cake?
> See the leftist double standard yet?


 No double standard of any sort, just the law of the land. If you own a business, you cannot discriminate who you do business with on the basis of sexual orientation. The bakery was not asked to do anything special, just provide the same service they would to anyone else. What you advocate by saying 'cant they go somewhere else' is segregation, pure and simple. Again, also against the law. 
In the Kim Davis case, she refuses to do the job she was elected to do, thus she is in contempt of court. 
She doesn't get to pick and choose who she will serve in the capacity of county clerk.


----------



## wiscto

If SCOTUS ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, I seriously doubt they're going to rule in favor of forcing religious institutions to accommodate gay marriage. I think this is something that should be made clear in these next elections. Because I don't care who it is or what the rest of their ideology consists of, I won't vote for an individual who believes in forcing a religious institution to accommodate a wedding that falls outside their religious beliefs. I think the whole point is, "married in the eyes of God (or your religious institution)" is a separate issue from "married in the eyes of the law." Because then we can all marry or not marry according to our own beliefs, and then have that marriage recognized by our neutral government.


----------



## arabian knight

MoonRiver said:


> Then why is she still in jail?


The attorney for Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who was jailed last week for refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, *has been ordered released*, her attorney, Roger Gannam, told Yahoo News.


----------



## painterswife

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Mike-Huckabee-Ted-Cruz-planned-meet-jail.html

"U.S. District Judge David Bunning wrote in a decision that since gay couples whom Davis previously turned away 'have obtained marriage licenses from the Rowan County Clerkâs Office,' he is satisfied that her office is now 'fulfilling its obligation to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples.'
Bunning noted that the new marriage licenses are no longer pre-printed with her name â reading 'Rowan County' instead of 'Kim Davis.' "

Looks like her martyrdom has been thwarted.


----------



## MoonRiver

arabian knight said:


> The attorney for Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who was jailed last week for refusing to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, *has been ordered released*, her attorney, Roger Gannam, told Yahoo News.


And I think nothing has changed, so he looks like a fool.


----------



## painterswife

MoonRiver said:


> And I think nothing has changed, so he looks like a fool.


Same sex marriage licenses are being issued. She said she would not allow them to be issued with her name on them. They were. I think she lost that fight. The judge upheld the law. I am curious to see what she will do now. They have removed her name for future licences so she did succeed with that..


----------



## kuriakos

MoonRiver said:


> And I think nothing has changed, so he looks like a fool.


Her name has been removed from the licenses. Isn't that exactly what she wanted?


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MoonRiver said:


> And I think nothing has changed, so he looks like a fool.


She's the one who sat in jail, and the licenses will still be issued.
The judge isn't the "fool" here, since they are now complying with the court orders. He gave her this option before she went to jail


----------



## poppy

painterswife said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Mike-Huckabee-Ted-Cruz-planned-meet-jail.html
> 
> "U.S. District Judge David Bunning wrote in a decision that since gay couples whom Davis previously turned away 'have obtained marriage licenses from the Rowan County Clerk&#8217;s Office,' he is satisfied that her office is now 'fulfilling its obligation to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples.'
> Bunning noted that the new marriage licenses are no longer pre-printed with her name &#8211; reading 'Rowan County' instead of 'Kim Davis.' "
> 
> *Looks like her martyrdom has been thwarted.*


Nonsense. She won. She is no longer responsible for abetting sin (in her eyes). It's now up to the voters whether or not to reelect her next election and that outcome will depend on the religious views of those voters.


----------



## painterswife

poppy said:


> Nonsense. She won. She is no longer responsible for abetting sin (in her eyes).


She could have won and not gone to jail. She said she would not allow her deputies to give out licenses. They did. So the same result could have happened without going to jail. 

She has been ordered to not interfere with her deputies issuing licences. Something she said she would not agree to last week.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

poppy said:


> Nonsense. She won. She is no longer responsible for abetting sin (in her eyes). It's now up to the voters whether or not to reelect her next election and that outcome will depend on the religious views of those voters.


LOL
If you want to think she "won", that's fine.

She could have agreed to let the clerks do it months ago and avoided all the drama

There still may be criminal charges pending for not performing her duties

About a week ago I said she'd change her mind within that time period, and evidently she has, since that is part of the release order.


----------



## wiscto

poppy said:


> Nonsense. She won. *She is no longer responsible for abetting sin (in her eyes)*. It's now up to the voters whether or not to reelect her next election and that outcome will depend on the religious views of those voters.


Except for that gluttony thing that comes up a few times in the bible. Oh right, I forgot, we're all supposed to adjust our world to suit her particular version of Christianity.


----------



## Patchouli

I wonder what will happen with the civil suits? I think they ought to get something for pain and suffering.


----------



## arabian knight

What 'pain and suffering'? THEY were the4 ones that cause of this bs in the first place. THEY could have GONEW somewhere else instead of shoving it in the face of the American people like this. SHAME ON THEM~! THEY are the SINNERS here not her.~!


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> What 'pain and suffering'? THEY were the4 ones that cause of this bs in the first place. THEY could have GONEW somewhere else instead of shoving it in the face of the American people like this. SHAME ON THEM~!


Shame on your post. They fought for their constitutional rights. No shame in that. Not one bit.


----------



## Lisa in WA

arabian knight said:


> What 'pain and suffering'? THEY were the4 ones that cause of this bs in the first place. THEY could have GONEW somewhere else instead of shoving it in the face of the American people like this. SHAME ON THEM~!


Please explain why they should have to go somewhere else than their home county to get a marriage license?


----------



## MoonRiver

Bearfootfarm said:


> She's the one who sat in jail, and the licenses will still be issued.
> The judge isn't the "fool" here, since they are now complying with the court orders. He gave her this option before she went to jail


So what has changed while she was in jail? Nothing. The licenses were issued Friday and she wasn't released then. This is a judge realizing a made a mistake.


----------



## MoonRiver

kuriakos said:


> Her name has been removed from the licenses. Isn't that exactly what she wanted?


Do you have a link for that. It is not what I have heard. I believe it requires an act of the legislature to remove her name.


----------



## painterswife

MoonRiver said:


> So what has changed while she was in jail? Nothing. The licenses were issued Friday and she wasn't released then. This is a judge realizing a made a mistake.


Actually the judge succeeded. He removed her influence on the deputies. Licences were issued. She will go back to jail if she interferes when she goes back to work.


----------



## painterswife

painterswife said:


> Actually the judge succeeded. He removed her influence on the deputies. Licences were issued. She will go back to jail if she interferes when she goes back to work.


"Bunning noted that the new marriage licenses are no longer pre-printed with her name â reading 'Rowan County' instead of 'Kim Davis.'"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Ted-Cruz-planned-meet-jail.html#ixzz3lAwrdb1a 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## MoonRiver

painterswife said:


> Same sex marriage licenses are being issued. She said she would not allow them to be issued with her name on them. They were. I think she lost that fight. The judge upheld the law. I am curious to see what she will do now. They have removed her name for future licences so she did succeed with that..


I'm confused.

She said she would not allow and she didn't allow. The judge is the one that authorized the licenses to be issued, although I doubt he had that authority as these are state licenses and he is a federal judge.

Please give me a link or reference that says that her name has been removed from future licenses. I don't believe that is true, but if you have proof I will be glad to admit I was wrong.


----------



## Nevada

painterswife said:


> Same sex marriage licenses are being issued. She said she would not allow them to be issued with her name on them. They were. I think she lost that fight. The judge upheld the law. I am curious to see what she will do now. They have removed her name for future licences so she did succeed with that..


I wonder why she didn't change the license herself a long time ago?


----------



## Patchouli

MoonRiver said:


> So what has changed while she was in jail? Nothing. The licenses were issued Friday and she wasn't released then. This is a judge realizing a made a mistake.


Now that is some crazy hard spin right there. :spinsmiley: The people who filed the lawsuit got their marriage licenses. End of lawsuit, end of case. I'd say that's a pretty massive change. They even condescended to changing the forms just to make Davis happy,


----------



## Patchouli

MoonRiver said:


> I'm confused.
> 
> She said she would not allow and she didn't allow. The judge is the one that authorized the licenses to be issued, although I doubt he had that authority as these are state licenses and he is a federal judge.
> 
> Please give me a link or reference that says that her name has been removed from future licenses. I don't believe that is true, but if you have proof I will be glad to admit I was wrong.


Try reading the link she posted: 



> *Bunning noted that the new marriage licenses are no longer pre-printed with her name â reading 'Rowan County' instead of 'Kim Davis.'*



​


----------



## painterswife

MoonRiver said:


> I'm confused.
> 
> She said she would not allow and she didn't allow. The judge is the one that authorized the licenses to be issued, although I doubt he had that authority as these are state licenses and he is a federal judge.
> 
> Please give me a link or reference that says that her name has been removed from future licenses. I don't believe that is true, but if you have proof I will be glad to admit I was wrong.


Another example. It has been all over the news.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-licenses-finally-issued-in-kentucky-county/

"The licenses issued to same-sex couples Friday aren&#8217;t valid, Staver argued, because they were issued under the county clerk&#8217;s authority &#8212; but Davis hasn&#8217;t granted that authority.

The marriage forms issued Friday did not bear Davis&#8217;s name because of her refusal to endorse them. Instead, the clerk&#8217;s office included a space for a deputy clerk to sign his or her name."


----------



## MoonRiver

Patchouli said:


> Try reading the link she posted:
> 
> 
> ​


She didn't allow the licenses to be granted on Friday, the judge did.

This one is better. 13:41 et on 9/8/2015



> Just minutes after a judge ordered Kim Davis released from jail on Tuesday, her lawyers told CNN that she would violate a court order by forcing her clerks to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.





> &#8220;The problem here is that the attorney says she has not changed her mind, that Kim Davis is adamant that as long as her name appears on those marriage licenses, she objects and she will attempt to stop those licenses from being distributed,&#8221; Savidge reported. &#8220;Which means if she goes back on the job as is expected, she will bring the process to a halt. That&#8217;s what her attorneys believe.&#8221;


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/law...lt-marriage-licenses-after-release-from-jail/


----------



## painterswife

MoonRiver said:


> She didn't allow the licenses to be granted on Friday, the judge did.
> 
> This one is better. 13:41 et on 9/8/2015
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/law...lt-marriage-licenses-after-release-from-jail/


Exactly. He took the authority away from her.


----------



## Patchouli

MoonRiver said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Patchouli*
> _Try reading the link she posted: _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> ​_
> 
> She didn't allow the licenses to be granted on Friday, the judge did.
> 
> This one is better. 13:41 et on 9/8/2015
> 
> Quote:
> Just minutes after a judge ordered Kim Davis released from jail on Tuesday, her lawyers told CNN that she would violate a court order by forcing her clerks to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
> Quote:
> &#8220;The problem here is that the attorney says she has not changed her mind, *that Kim Davis is adamant that as long as her name appears on those marriage licenses, she objects and she will attempt to stop those licenses from being distributed*,&#8221; Savidge reported. &#8220;Which means if she goes back on the job as is expected, she will bring the process to a halt. That&#8217;s what her attorneys believe.&#8221;
> http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/lawy...ase-from-jail/
Click to expand...

Her name is not on it anymore. Her name is gone, the people got their licenses and got married, end of case. I don't even know what you are trying to argue here.


----------



## painterswife

Looks like she is still going to fight it. Waiting on more details.


----------



## Lisa in WA

Watching Huckabee bloviating on stage about Kim Davis. I notice he is overweight. Will there be snide comments here about the size/texture of his gut/rear?


----------



## painterswife

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/law...lt-marriage-licenses-after-release-from-jail/

"Just minutes after a judge ordered Kim Davis released from jail on Tuesday, her lawyers told CNN that she would violate a court order by forcing her clerks to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples."

"Savidge said that Davis&#8217; legal team told him that they did not feel that they had won a victory because the judge had not accommodated her demands to have her signature removed from marriage licenses.

&#8220;She was religiously opposed to having her name appear on same-sex marriage licenses, and that hasn&#8217;t changed,&#8221; he said. &#8220;It&#8217;s looking like this could be repeated once again.&#8221;


----------



## MoonRiver

Patchouli said:


> Her name is not on it anymore. Her name is gone, the people got their licenses and got married, end of case. I don't even know what you are trying to argue here.


Where did you get the idea her name is no longer on the license?


----------



## MoonRiver

basketti said:


> Watching Huckabee bloviating on stage about Kim Davis. I notice he is overweight. Will there be snide comments here about the size/texture of his gut/rear?


No, but there is an important lesson here. If you lose a lot of weight, don't assume you have the problem under control and start preaching to others. It has a way of coming back.


----------



## Patchouli

painterswife said:


> "Bunning noted that the new marriage licenses are no longer pre-printed with her name â reading 'Rowan County' instead of 'Kim Davis.'"
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Ted-Cruz-planned-meet-jail.html#ixzz3lAwrdb1a
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Also quoted in at least 2 of my posts above with links to a different article. How many times do we have to post it? 



> The marriage licenses obtained by three couples in Rowan County last week were altered to remove the name of jailed county clerk Kim Davis, according to a court document.
> Copies of licenses issues last week and filed in the court record show that where Davis' name ordinarily would be, the words "Rowan County" were used instead.
> So instead of the licenses saying they were issued on a certain date "in the office of Kim Davis, Rowan County County Clerk," which would be standard, examples included in the court file say they were issued "in the office of Rowan County, Rowan County County Clerk."
> The licenses did include the name of deputy clerk Brian Mason in a spot designated for the "recorder's name."


http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/08/4025586/marriage-licenses-issued-friday.html

http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/08/4025586/marriage-licenses-issued-friday.html#storylink=cpy​


----------



## wiscto

basketti said:


> Watching Huckabee bloviating on stage about Kim Davis. I notice he is overweight. Will there be snide comments here about the size/texture of his gut/rear?


Has he made a lot of comments about that in the past? I won't lie, I've made a snide comment regarding Kim Davis. But only because she's preaching to others about her bible while conveniently forgetting certain sins.


----------



## keenataz

MoonRiver said:


> No, but there is an important lesson here. If you lose a lot of weight, don't assume you have the problem under control and start preaching to others. It has a way of coming back.


Going way off topic here. But Mike Huckabee was tremendously overweight about 10 years ago or so. He then lost a lot and in my mind actually looked a bit sick. But as anyone who battles weight such as I knows it is a constant battle and apparently he is struggling again.

Even though his political views and mine are 180 degrees apart I don't take any joy in this. I hope he can get it under control again for the sake of his health.

As far as your post, reminds me of Oprah probably 25 years ago. Came back from summer hiatus and showcased her skinny jeans and began preaching her weight loss. I have to admit that one makes me chuckle a bit now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> What 'pain and suffering'? THEY were the4 ones that cause of this bs in the first place. THEY could have GONEW somewhere else instead of shoving it in the face of the American people like this. SHAME ON THEM~! *THEY are the SINNERS* here not her.~!


Davis is the only one causing "BS" by trying to force her religious beliefs on everyone, and refusing service to those who don't follow her ways.

You're as much a "sinner" for judging others, but you only want to go by the rules that suit your agendas.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MoonRiver said:


> So *what has changed* while she was in jail? Nothing. The licenses were issued Friday and she wasn't released then. This is a judge realizing a made a mistake.


She was refusing to allow the clerks to issue any licenses

I'm beginning to think you really don't read replies, since all this has been asked and answered more than once.

What has *changed* is the Rowan County Clerk's office is *now *in compliance with all the court orders, and no one is being denied a marriage license if they meet the legal requirements.

This really isn't complicated, nor difficult to understand:

When one is jailed for "contempt" they are held until they agree to follow the court orders


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MoonRiver said:


> Do you have a link for that. It is not what I have heard. *I believe* it requires an act of the legislature to remove her name.


You also "believe" her signature was required, even after seeing the statutes and a picture of an actual license.

Nothing in the statute said her name was required on the license.

I suspect she's not remembering her name IS required on any "marriage certificate" that she may have to record after the weddings.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Patchouli said:


> Also quoted in at least 2 of my posts above with links to a different article. *How many times do we have to post it*?
> 
> http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/08/4025586/marriage-licenses-issued-friday.html
> 
> http://www.kentucky.com/2015/09/08/4025586/marriage-licenses-issued-friday.html#storylink=cpy​


It seems far more times than *should* be necessary for a reasonable person to comprehend.


----------



## MoonRiver

Bearfootfarm said:


> She was refusing to allow the clerks to issue any licenses
> 
> I'm beginning to think you really don't read replies, since all this has been asked and answered more than once.
> 
> What has *changed* is the Rowan County Clerk's office is *now *in compliance with all the court orders, and no one is being denied a marriage license if they meet the legal requirements.
> 
> This really isn't complicated, nor difficult to understand:
> 
> When one is jailed for "contempt" they are held until they agree to follow the court orders


And her lawyer has said (as I posted) that his client will likely stop the deputy clerks from issuing licenses. She has not changed her mind and still intends to not authorize any licenses with her name and title on them. So as I said, nothing has changed. You don't seem to be keeping up.


----------



## kuriakos

MoonRiver said:


> And her lawyer has said (as I posted) that his client will likely stop the deputy clerks from issuing licenses. She has not changed her mind and still intends to not authorize any licenses with her name and title on them. So as I said, nothing has changed. You don't seem to be keeping up.


What has changed (according to the multiple sources already posted that you can't seem to see) is that her name has been removed from the licenses as she wanted. That is a reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs. If she continues to interfere with the issuing of licenses, she will be back in jail for contempt.


----------



## painterswife

MoonRiver said:


> And her lawyer has said (as I posted) that his client will likely stop the deputy clerks from issuing licenses. She has not changed her mind and still intends to not authorize any licenses with her name and title on them. So as I said, nothing has changed. You don't seem to be keeping up.


She no longer gets to make that decision. She tries and she goes back to jail. The judge made it part of the ruling to release her. That and the fact they don't have her name and title on them according to news reports. 

Sounds like now she is trying to grandstand.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

MoonRiver said:


> And her lawyer has said (as I posted) that his *client will likely stop the deputy clerks from issuing licenses*. She has not changed her mind and still intends to not authorize any licenses with her name and title on them. So as I said, nothing has changed. You don't seem to be keeping up.


The release order says she cannot interfere, or she will pay the consequences again.

I'm not "keeping up" 

I'm way ahead, since it's been noted (again more than once) her name isn't on the licenses anymore

Read the release order yourself:
http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2015/...in-jail-but-what-law-was-broken/?subscriber=1

You can keep chanting "nothing has changed"
Try clicking your heels together at the same time


----------



## painterswife

Seems some people don't bother to read or investigate because it contradicts the story they want to believe.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

painterswife said:


> Seems some people don't bother to read or investigate because it contradicts the story they want to believe.


I'm beginning to think it's deliberate, because the same scenario is playing out on multiple threads


----------



## painterswife

Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm beginning to think it's deliberate, because the same scenario is playing out on multiple threads


It is just plain sad.


----------



## arabian knight

MoonRiver said:


> And her lawyer has said (as I posted) that his client will likely stop the deputy clerks from issuing licenses. She has not changed her mind and still intends to not authorize any licenses with her name and title on them. So as I said, nothing has changed. You don't seem to be keeping up.


 Some just keeping up by just reading their Own propaganda sites. The ones that just print one sided story from their own kind.


----------



## painterswife

arabian knight said:


> Some just keeping up by just reading their Own propaganda sites. The ones that just print one sided story from their own kind.


Feel free to provide some other sites. Does not matter how a news site leans the facts are the facts.


----------



## wiscto

Bearfootfarm said:


> The release order says she cannot interfere, or she will pay the consequences again.
> 
> I'm not "keeping up"
> 
> I'm way ahead, since it's been noted (again more than once) her name isn't on the licenses anymore
> 
> Read the release order yourself:
> http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/2015/...in-jail-but-what-law-was-broken/?subscriber=1
> 
> You can keep chanting "nothing has changed"
> Try clicking your heels together at the same time


In the ironic words of someone else here, whom you are in fact way way way way ahead of...



> Some just keeping up by just reading their Own propaganda sites. The ones that just print one sided story from their own kind.


----------



## MoonRiver

painterswife said:


> Seems some people don't bother to read or investigate because it contradicts the story they want to believe.


Why join bff in the insult department? Just because I interpret the facts differently than the liberals on this board, doesn't mean I am wrong. No matter how rude people are or how many times they tell me I am wrong, I only respond to facts. 

Yes, it is a fact her name was removed. IMO, it was done illegally as the county clerk is the designated representative of the state of Kentucky who authorizes marriage licenses within the county. Several county clerks in Kentucky share this understanding of the law. Without her name and title on the license, I believe they are unauthorized.

So my interpretation fits the facts until a court rules that it was in fact legal to remove her name and substitute a deputy clerk. Until that happens, I will continue to believe I have interpreted the law correctly.

Look at it this way. Anyone could type up a marriage license and sign it, but that doesn't make it a valid marriage license. So what is it that makes it official? Based on my research, I believe it is the name on the license of the state's authorized agent - the county clerk. A deputy clerk will sign it when they hand it out, but that is just to show that they are the clerk that processed that particular form. Then after the marriage, a clerk signs it again when it is registered. 

It's not worth arguing about, because we don't know if the county clerk is the only person that can authorize the license or if a deputy clerk can. You believe a deputy can and I don't. I have seen no definitive documentation that proves it without a doubt, one way or the other. But I think logically, the clerk is the authorized agent of the state and the deputy clerks get their authority from the clerk. If that is true, then I don't see how a deputy clerk can assume the authority of the clerk under existing law. I also have trouble understanding how a federal judge can order a state form to be altered.


----------



## painterswife

MoonRiver said:


> Why join bff in the insult department? Just because I interpret the facts differently than the liberals on this board, doesn't mean I am wrong. No matter how rude people are or how many times they tell me I am wrong, I only respond to facts.
> 
> Yes, it is a fact her name was removed. IMO, it was done illegally as the county clerk is the designated representative of the state of Kentucky who authorizes marriage licenses within the county. Several county clerks in Kentucky share this understanding of the law. Without her name and title on the license, I believe they are unauthorized.
> 
> So my interpretation fits the facts until a court rules that it was in fact legal to remove her name and substitute a deputy clerk. Until that happens, I will continue to believe I have interpreted the law correctly.


So in fact I posted the truth several times but you admit you did not know that and kept asking the question several times. I posted my opinion that some are not reading what is posted. That is an insult? Seems to be the actual truth so how can it be an insult unless it is because you take it that way[.


----------



## wiscto

MoonRiver said:


> Why join bff in the insult department? Just because I interpret the facts differently than the liberals on this board, doesn't mean I am wrong. No matter how rude people are or how many times they tell me I am wrong, I only respond to facts.
> 
> Yes, it is a fact her name was removed. IMO, it was done illegally as the county clerk is the designated representative of the state of Kentucky who authorizes marriage licenses within the county. Several county clerks in Kentucky share this understanding of the law. Without her name and title on the license, I believe they are unauthorized.
> 
> So my interpretation fits the facts until a court rules that it was in fact legal to remove her name and substitute a deputy clerk. Until that happens, I will continue to believe I have interpreted the law correctly.


Oh now you care about the law? Let's say you're right. Now let's ask a question. If every tax payer in the county has to pay her salary regardless of their religious beliefs, and every tax payer in the county has to go through the clerk to get a license to marry, does she have a right as the GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, to deny them their legal rights? OR would that be unconstitutional.

I only ask because, someday you might need a police officer to investigate a theft of your property. Let's say it's a family bible handed down to you through the generations. Let's say that officer is an atheist and chooses not to recognize your bible as property and refuses to file your report. Let's say you go to the shift commander and the shift commander feels the same way. Let's say you find some officers willing to listen, but the Sheriff shuts them down because he/she happens to be an atheist who believes your bible shouldn't exist in the first place. Are you okay with that? 

Tell you what. New scenario. Let's say you're out in Utah over in Latter Day Saints land. You accidentally hit a kid running across the street. You have the constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial but...oops...you're not one of God's chosen according to the cult hive mind out there so the public defender refuses to defend you, and you don't get your phone call because your heathen hands might bring the devil. Is that constitutional?


----------



## Evons hubby

Bearfootfarm said:


> You also "believe" her signature was required, even after seeing the statutes and a picture of an actual license.
> 
> Nothing in the statute said her name was required on the license.
> 
> I suspect she's not remembering her name IS required on any "marriage certificate" that she may have to record after the weddings.


Nope, the deputy clerks can sign those too. That has been covered here too.


----------



## Bearfootfarm

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Nope, the deputy clerks can sign those too. That has been covered here too.


You're correct. I misread that section


----------



## Bearfootfarm

arabian knight said:


> Some just keeping up by just reading their Own propaganda sites. The ones that just print* one sided story* from their own kind.


You've posted a lot of silly pictures, while others have posted the actual statutes and court documents. :shrug:

That "one sided story" appears to be the one side with real information to offer


----------



## Bearfootfarm

> Why join bff in the insult department? Just because I interpret the facts differently than the liberals on this board, doesn't mean I am wrong. No matter how rude people are or how many times they tell me I am wrong, *I only respond to facts.*


If that was true, you wouldn't keep repeating questions that have been answered several times already.


----------



## wiscto




----------



## Evons hubby

Neat cartoon, but why can't this clerk sell the ham, then let him get the condoms rang up by the Muslim? Seems simpler than sending the guy to two more registers. :shrug:


----------



## wannabfarmer

Looks like a wally world uniform, he is lucky to be acknowledged at all.


----------



## Agriculture

Well for 8 bucks an hour they're not exactly attracting the best and brightest.


----------



## wiscto

wannabfarmer said:


> Looks like a wally world uniform, he is lucky to be acknowledged at all.


Yea normally they're pretty weird about interaction. Then again I only drop by during the weird hours.


----------



## Darren

Agriculture said:


> Well for 8 bucks an hour they're not exactly attracting the best and brightest.


Just the ones that can pass a drug screen.


----------

