I don't agree with her view, but I can respect that she has one and I think that she is welcome to her beliefs. But then she needs to quit.
What I said wasn't an argument about whether or not she should be denying the licenses. There isn't an argument there.
I was posing a more general question about understanding where one's actions fit amongst society. But then again, probably everyone in her life is homophobic and/or against gay rights, so I guess it's tough to have a broad perspective when you're living amongst your own little bubble/community.
They should just fire her for not performing the duties of her job
She has every right to refuse to do something based on her religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean she gets to keep her job if she refuses to do something legally required.....
I don't agree with her view, but I can respect that she has one and I think that she is welcome to her beliefs. But then she needs to quit.
What I said wasn't an argument about whether or not she should be denying the licenses. There isn't an argument there.
I was posing a more general question about understanding where one's actions fit amongst society. But then again, probably everyone in her life is homophobic and/or against gay rights, so I guess it's tough to have a broad perspective when you're living amongst your own little bubble/community.
That's an interesting question because I would argue that she and her community have the same rights to do and believe and hang together as the gay community or any other community. But all that is superseded by the law. I think it's great that she has principles but if she truly had them, then she needs to find a new line of work. Failing that, she has to fulfill her job requirements.
She has every right to refuse to do something based on her religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean she gets to keep her job if she refuses to do something legally required.....
Exactly. She isn't doing her job so she needs to lose it. If they want to keep her then she should be held in contempt and fined or jailed. Whether she agrees with the law is irrelevant, her job is to issue a marriage license to those who meet the legal requirements not biblical requirements.
I don't agree with her view, but I can respect that she has one and I think that she is welcome to her beliefs. But then she needs to quit.
What I said wasn't an argument about whether or not she should be denying the licenses. There isn't an argument there.
I was posing a more general question about understanding where one's actions fit amongst society. But then again, probably everyone in her life is homophobic and/or against gay rights, so I guess it's tough to have a broad perspective when you're living amongst your own little bubble/community.
That's an interesting question because I would argue that she and her community have the same rights to do and believe and hang together as the gay community or any other community. But all that is superseded by the law. I think it's great that she has principles but if she truly had them, then she needs to find a new line of work. Failing that, she has to fulfill her job requirements.
How likely do you think it is that she takes this principled stand and quits her job?
I think a more likely scenerio is a GD circus, with morons filing petions with the governors office to reinstate her. Fair and balanced inverviews on Fox News championing her bravery in standing up to a tyrannical and hedonistic government. You get the picture.
this is about the rule of law. When a clerk with an attitude, or POTUS decides to disobey the law, this is what you get... obey the laws you like instead of changing the law.
RE: RE: Who do we fire for ignoring Immigration laws...
She doesn't want to discriminate against gay couples, so she is not issuing any marriage licenses at all. (At least, I heard a radio report to that effect.)
I know this is a big thing right now, but I don't get it. If she thinks same-sex marriage is a sin, she shouldn't marry a woman. Lots of people commit lots of sins, it's not her job to prevent people from sinning, it's her job to issue marriage licenses to people who legally qualify for them.
I am unfamiliar with Kentucky laws, but this would be easily solved if someone else in that office had the authority to issue the licenses. What happens when she goes on vacation and a heterosexual couple comes into the office and wants a license?
this is about the rule of law. When a clerk with an attitude, or POTUS decides to disobey the law, this is what you get... obey the laws you like instead of changing the law.
An attorney says the Kentucky clerk who won't issue marriage licenses and all her deputy clerks have been called for a federal court hearing Thursday morning.
Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins says the federal court alerted him that a hearing is scheduled for 11 a.m. Thursday in Ashland.
Watkins says clerk Kim Davis is summonsed to attend, along with all the deputy clerks who work in her office.
is just deafening regarding gay marriage. 40- 50% of married straight people get divorced in this country. The catholic religion is very straightforward about that--unless you choose to ignore it. You know, for your own purposes.
RE: RE: Who do we fire for ignoring Immigration laws...
That the gays would impose their beliefs on the various houses of worship.
This is more like a government authority forcing their beliefs on other people. Would you also agree if she refused to give marriage licenses to people who were divorced? Some churches believe that divorced people should not marry again.
Ignorance of the First Amendment extends well beyond BBI
A fellow Kentucky clerk, Casey Davis, who has protested alongside Ms. Davis, insisted Tuesday that weve not tried to prevent, same-sex marriages, weve only tried to exercise our First Amendment rights.
And I don't see the argument about standing up for her beliefs - at their core, her belief is discriminatory and hateful - what is the honor is standing up for that?
is just deafening regarding gay marriage. 40- 50% of married straight people get divorced in this country. The catholic religion is very straightforward about that--unless you choose to ignore it. You know, for your own purposes.
I'm not Catholic, but IIRC the Catholic Church will not perform marriages for people who have been divorced. Some will not even give communion.
That the gays would impose their beliefs on the various houses of worship.
This is more like a government authority forcing their beliefs on other people. Would you also agree if she refused to give marriage licenses to people who were divorced? Some churches believe that divorced people should not marry again.
I couldnt care less. What a given church believes or doesn't believe is immaterial to law.
RE: Who do we fire for ignoring Immigration laws...
is just deafening regarding gay marriage. 40- 50% of married straight people get divorced in this country. The catholic religion is very straightforward about that--unless you choose to ignore it. You know, for your own purposes.
I'm not Catholic, but IIRC the Catholic Church will not perform marriages for people who have been divorced. Some will not even give communion.
Fun fact - the right Church will allow you to "pay" for an annulment, even in the case of a multi-year marriage with children.
this is about the rule of law. When a clerk with an attitude, or POTUS decides to disobey the law, this is what you get... obey the laws you like instead of changing the law.
You're just so way off, here. This is a case of two people going to a government office and being denied a license to which they have a right because the office's clerk objects to the law on religious grounds.
Your contorting it into some Obama criticism is absurd and pretty pathetic. No one is going to Obama and asking him to provide him or her with a rightful entitlement, with Obama refusing it based on a religious objection.
You are the one contorting the issue of the rule of law. Emotion about the efficacy of law is not a reason to apply it when you 'believe' it's right or wrong. Just because you think a written immigration law is arcane doesn't excuse ignoring it. My point is that this clerk isn't doing her job by ignoring her duty and the law... same for the Federal Government willfully ignoring immigration laws.
RE: RE: Who do we fire for ignoring Immigration laws...
WHy is it apples and oranges? Why are you entitled to flout the law sometimes when it suits you and not others? Bear in mind that I think the clerk is completely in the wrong. But this side question intrigues me.
RE: RE: RE: Who do we fire for ignoring Immigration laws...
WHy is it apples and oranges? Why are you entitled to flout the law sometimes when it suits you and not others? Bear in mind that I think the clerk is completely in the wrong. But this side question intrigues me.
she should become a Pastor. However, as an elected Clerk she has a duty to enforce the law, even if she disagrees with it. Nobody forced her to become the Clerk and the law puts the requirement to issue on marriage licenses to whomever holds the office. It is not like the law says Mrs. Davis has to sign the marriage licenses but no other Clerk is required to.
It's 'apples and oranges' when people who replace the rule of law with their interperation of justice (and good vibes). Anyone who disagrees is stupid, bigoted, homophobic, etc.
she should become a Pastor. However, as an elected Clerk she has a duty to enforce the law, even if she disagrees with it. Nobody forced her to become the Clerk and the law puts the requirement to issue on marriage licenses to whomever holds the office. It is not like the law says Mrs. Davis has to sign the marriage licenses but no other Clerk is required to.
Yeah this. I respect her conscience even though I disagree with the conclusions to which it leads her. But if you find your conscience incompatible with what you're asked to do as part of a job you took and maintain voluntarily, you need to stop doing it. It is all well and good, in many cases admirable, that you conscientiously object to the duties of being a soldier, but you should not have signed on in the first place and if the duties or your conscience changed in the meantime such that you can no longer perform those duties America is not obligated to continue to cut you a check to do only those duties that comport with your moral compass.
is just deafening regarding gay marriage. 40- 50% of married straight people get divorced in this country. The catholic religion is very straightforward about that--unless you choose to ignore it. You know, for your own purposes.
I'm not Catholic, but IIRC the Catholic Church will not perform marriages for people who have been divorced. Some will not even give communion.
Fun fact - the right Church will allow you to "pay" for an annulment, even in the case of a multi-year marriage with children.
WHy is it apples and oranges? Why are you entitled to flout the law sometimes when it suits you and not others? Bear in mind that I think the clerk is completely in the wrong. But this side question intrigues me.
The main difference is that Presidents, historically, have had lots of leeway to set "prosecutorial priority" and regulations and policy that further specifies what to do in interpreting the gaps in the law. Obama's immigration changes are, in theory, being made in agreement with that precedent. Reagan and Bush 1 have done things that are at least similar on face value. The courts will figure out if Obama has gone too far, as I think that stuff will be challenged. This is an orange.
This lady is a county clerk. She's not been given, nor have holders of her office been given, authority to make any changes to how she discharges her duties. The legality of her requested change has been completely settled, including the Supremes saying, "not interested". This is an apple.
Now, I will admit that if the courts agree with those who say that Obama has exceeded the precedents of his office and his authority, it may change from an orange to a pear (Closer). If after that he says, "screw you guys, I'm sticking with it", well, then we'd have an apple.
Hope this helps :)
RE: RE: If she wants to speak on faith/current events
she should become a Pastor. However, as an elected Clerk she has a duty to enforce the law, even if she disagrees with it. Nobody forced her to become the Clerk and the law puts the requirement to issue on marriage licenses to whomever holds the office. It is not like the law says Mrs. Davis has to sign the marriage licenses but no other Clerk is required to.
Yeah this. I respect her conscience even though I disagree with the conclusions to which it leads her. But if you find your conscience incompatible with what you're asked to do as part of a job you took and maintain voluntarily, you need to stop doing it. It is all well and good, in many cases admirable, that you conscientiously object to the duties of being a soldier, but you should not have signed on in the first place and if the duties or your conscience changed in the meantime such that you can no longer perform those duties America is not obligated to continue to cut you a check to do only those duties that comport with your moral compass.
This isn't a dig at you duned, so I hope it doesn't come across as that.
I think most people are using their lack of "comfortability" with gay people as the driving force in how they interact with them. So I don't respect her conscience, as you said, because if she truly feels that this is religion driven, can we go down the list of things that the bible would find "objectionable" and how she treats those instances?
I'm not "comfortable" as such, with gay people--because I'm straight. Gay guys kiss? Yuck. But I get that. We are different in that way and I think it is the right thing to not treat them differently, regardless of how I feel about gay acts. Or gay people acting sexually.
We should remind ourselves that we live in a country where many people can't talk openly about straight sex, for pete's sake.
somewhat funny this women fighting for the sanctity of marriage has only been divorced a couple of times. I guess god likes one women and at least two men. I did see reports she is on her fourth marriage, but cannot find reliable sources. I just hate people who are hypocritical about gay marriage and don't think twice about divorce.
one thing from the church regarding marriage and forgetting everything else. She has no problem issuing licenses to people who have been divorced, or people of other religions, or people who have had kids prior to marriage. She is choosing this one thing, and that makes her a hypocrite hiding behind the curtain of her religion.
This is her problem, and if she has such a big problem with it, she should step down.
I am unfamiliar with Kentucky laws, but this would be easily solved if someone else in that office had the authority to issue the licenses. What happens when she goes on vacation and a heterosexual couple comes into the office and wants a license?
She's everyone's boss in that office. And fwiw, a couple can go to any city clerks office in the state to get a marriage license if they really want one. It doesn't have to come from the county you live in.
The main difference is that Presidents, historically, have had lots of leeway to set "prosecutorial priority" and regulations and policy that further specifies what to do in interpreting the gaps in the law. Obama's immigration changes are, in theory, being made in agreement with that precedent.
This is not what is happening. In the case of immigration, the laws are being ignored and that illegality is unenforced. Local municipalities are failing to comply with Federal Law and it is not being enforced by the Department of Justice. It doesnt' matter why the law is being ignored and unenforced for this argument, but it is fact that the law is being ignored, there is no discretion (prosecutorial priority). I disagree with the disregard for the law being demonstrated by the clerk and the disregard for the law by the Federal Government. Both are dead wrong for the same reason.
The main difference is that Presidents, historically, have had lots of leeway to set "prosecutorial priority" and regulations and policy that further specifies what to do in interpreting the gaps in the law. Obama's immigration changes are, in theory, being made in agreement with that precedent.
This is not what is happening. In the case of immigration, the laws are being ignored and that illegality is unenforced. Local municipalities are failing to comply with Federal Law and it is not being enforced by the Department of Justice. It doesnt' matter why the law is being ignored and unenforced for this argument, but it is fact that the law is being ignored, there is no discretion (prosecutorial priority). I disagree with the disregard for the law being demonstrated by the clerk and the disregard for the law by the Federal Government. Both are dead wrong for the same reason.
Oh, I assumed you meant Obama's immigration stuff. My bad.
This is also an Orange. The key difference is that it's not the local jurisdictions job to enforce federal laws. They are making the determination that they don't want to be a part of enforcing that law and traditionally they have a lot of leeway to do that.
She can't be fired, because she's an elected official.
The Kentucky state legislature isn't going to impeach her.
She has two recourses, but of which make her a martyr, which one of the two political parties would LOVE for to happen.
1. The plantiffs can ask the federal judge to hold her in contempt of court, where she faces fines and/or jail time.
2. The Kentucky attorney general (a Democrat) could bring up misconduct charges, and she would go to jail.
Now if Davis ends up in jail, the Republicans would use her as the poster child for "Christian persecution," a woman who was jailed for exercising her religious beliefs. That would LOVE to point to this and scream, "See!? It's happening!"
she could just issue licenses or resign. That kind of persecution talk would only rally up the folks that are already on her side. Make a lot of hay on Fox News but most people would wonder why she pushed it that far.
she just looks like another jackass who won't follow the law.
I think the more likely tack is those outlets asking why the scofflaws regarding immigration are not held to a comparable standard. And while there are obvious difference regarding the law on these subjects, those arguments are likely to have some traction.
"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix."
"I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions."
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."
"I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage.
"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix."
"I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions."
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."
"I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage.
Barack Obama 2008 - 2012
What? A politician changes his public views to match polling? Shocking! :)
Kim Davis feels so strongly about the sanctity of marriage.....
As elected official. She has every right not to perform her required duties and in deep red Fox News Kentucky she is not getting impeached.
I am sure every gay couple in this county is meeting with lawyers to sue this county and will win easily. I hope this bigots enjoy when their taxes ahave to be raised to pay for the religious stance
"Until all office holders in all circumstances fulfill their duties in exactly the way I think they should, no office holder can be forced to follow this Godless law"
It's reasoning like that which makes me proud to be an American.
RE: Ignorance of the First Amendment extends well beyond BBI
A fellow Kentucky clerk, Casey Davis, who has protested alongside Ms. Davis, insisted Tuesday that weve not tried to prevent, same-sex marriages, weve only tried to exercise our First Amendment rights.
And I don't see the argument about standing up for her beliefs - at their core, her belief is discriminatory and hateful - what is the honor is standing up for that?
The First Amendment protects the people from the government. The government cannot force the people to practice a particular religion, or any religion. As an elected official, Ms. Davis IS THE GOVERNMENT. She is choosing to impose her particular religious beliefs on the people. So, no, she is not exercising her First Amendment rights. She is actively violating and restricting others' First Amendment rights.
I have no compassion for her. She is a bigot and a massive hypocrite. She's been divorced four times.
Jesus on Divorce
Mark 10:10-12: When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
MOREHEAD A federal judge has ordered Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis and her deputies to appear in his courtroom Thursday and explain why Davis should not be held in contempt of court for refusing to issue marriage licenses.
The plaintiffs made a motion -- this wasnt the judge watching the news and calling her in on his own accord.
Quote:
"Plaintiffs do not seek to compel Davis' compliance through incarceration," wrote William Sharp, legal director for the ACLU of Kentucky, which represents the couples.
"Since defendant Davis continues to collect compensation from the commonwealth for duties she fails to perform, plaintiffs urge the court to impose financial penalties sufficiently serious and increasingly onerous to compel Davis' immediate compliance without further delay," Sharp wrote.
Bunning responded by scheduling a contempt hearing for 11 a.m. Thursday at the U.S. District Courthouse in Ashland.
Separately, Attorney General Jack Conway continued to review a request from Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins, who wants a special prosecutor appointed to decide if Davis is guilty of official misconduct for failing to perform her public duties. The charge, a misdemeanor, could bring up to a year in jail.
"Plaintiffs do not seek to compel Davis' compliance through incarceration," wrote William Sharp, legal director for the ACLU of Kentucky, which represents the couples.
"Since defendant Davis continues to collect compensation from the commonwealth for duties she fails to perform, plaintiffs urge the court to impose financial penalties sufficiently serious and increasingly onerous to compel Davis' immediate compliance without further delay," Sharp wrote.
That's significant, except for the fact that someone will probably create a GoFundMe page and encourage morons to help pay her ongoing fines.
Fining her will result in an avalanche of donations and she'll keep refusing to issue the civil documents she is paid to issue. She'll never lay out a penny of her own money.
Factually speaking, prosecutorial discretion is not the same thing as ignoring the law. Also, prosecutorial discretion is legal, and every Pres, Rep and Dem have used it commonly.
RE: RE: Who do we fire for ignoring Immigration laws...
I actually think that you have a point there as well. The law is the law.
I'm sorry but you are fundamentally wrong. That executives and law enforcement have prosecutorial discretion is settled law. No court has challenged that with regards to DOCA, etal. The few judges in opposition object to measures designed, in my opinion, to make it easier to track the illegal immigrant population. The registration related portion of the exec order is what is under disagreement. The courts are not saying prioritizing who gets deported is either illegal, or abdication of duty.
My immigration stance tends to be strongly pro-enforcement. I'd even call it right wing, if the current right wing's immigration rhetoric didnt make my skin crawl.
But on a relative scale, why the fuck do I hear so much about immigration? Ohhhhh, a law going unenforced? How about the millions of Americans who filed fraudulent loan applications, which led to economic ruin? And the lenders who conspired with them to do so? How come no one is calling for the mass incarceration of all those Americans? Or all of the speeders? How come "they broke the law, period, end of story" is only relevant for illegal aliens?
Is illegal immigration really the biggest problem facing America? Because it is plainly the #1 topic in the GOP primary right now.
I think the Kate Steinly death made it a much bigger issue
and there has been more attention to crimes committed by illegal aliens including a lot of murders. And Trump touched a nerve on it and since then has seen his numbers go way up. So I think people feel 'politically safe' talking about it now.
from the WSJ (which I cite so we dont get into a debate about biased sources):
Quote:
They [ed. serious GOP candidates] might start by pointing out that numerous studies going back more than a century have shown that immigrantsregardless of nationality or legal statusare less likely than the native population to commit violent crimes or to be incarcerated. A new report from the Immigration Policy Center notes that while the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. more than tripled between 1990 and 2013 to more than 11.2 million, FBI data indicate that the violent crime rate declined 48%which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder. Likewise, the property crime rate fell 41%, including declining rates of motor vehicle theft, larceny/robbery, and burglary.
A separate IPC paper from 2007 explains that this is not a function of well-behaved high-skilled immigrants from India and China offsetting misdeeds of Latin American newcomers. The data show that for every ethnic group without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, according to the report. This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population.
It also holds true in states with large populations of illegal residents. A 2008 report by the Public Policy Institute of California found that immigrants are underrepresented in the prison system. The incarceration rate for foreign-born adults is 297 per 100,000 in the population, compared [with] 813 per 100,000 for U.S.-born adults, the study concludes. The foreign-born, who make up roughly 35% of Californias adult population, constitute 17% of the state prison population.
High-profile incidents, like the recent arrest of a Mexican national in the horrific shooting death of a young woman in San Francisco, can give the impression that immigrants are more likely to commit violent crimes. But the alleged killer is no more representative of Mexican immigrants than Dylann Roof is representative of white people.
being deported. That is the issue. We have the sanctuary city issues and the policy of this administration not to enforce the immigration laws. Plus they have released many known illegal alien violent criminals. It just makes no sense.
tens of thousands of Americans tomorrow for mortgage fraud. People lied on their mortgage applications -- you can just compare the mortgage applications to tax records. These people caused economic ruin in this country, and we needed massive bailouts for the financial industry to prevent outright depression. Where are those prosecutions? Easiest prosecutions in the world. "It makes no sense". When Im on a highway, I'd guess that in good weather, they whole road save a few cars/trucks is speeding. Yet hardly anyone ever gets pulled over. "It makes no sense".
You still havent explained why immigration is the issue that captivates the right. Because even to this Democrat who is anti-amnesty and pro-enforcement, it just seems like one big dog whistle to the "they're taking away our country" set.
My immigration stance tends to be strongly pro-enforcement. I'd even call it right wing, if the current right wing's immigration rhetoric didnt make my skin crawl.
But on a relative scale, why the fuck do I hear so much about immigration? Ohhhhh, a law going unenforced? How about the millions of Americans who filed fraudulent loan applications, which led to economic ruin? And the lenders who conspired with them to do so? How come no one is calling for the mass incarceration of all those Americans? Or all of the speeders? How come "they broke the law, period, end of story" is only relevant for illegal aliens?
Is illegal immigration really the biggest problem facing America? Because it is plainly the #1 topic in the GOP primary right now.
The two drug epidemics in America right now, meth and heroin, owe largely to illegal immigration. Cocaine too relies heavily on these networks. Again, that does not mean that all illegal immigrants are criminals, it is a function of the shadow world in which their legal status obligates them to live, but it is impossible to imagine these problems existing on the scale that they do without illegal immigration. So this isn't entirely a function of Donald Trump's dumbshit imagination. But he is unwilling or unable to articulate a nuanced understanding of the problem above and beyond demonizing the average immigrant.
just one side grasping at reasons to push illegal immigration among other issues. There isnt any reasonable solution on illegal immigration -- wall, drones, more ICE agents etc -- that is going to materially impact heroin and meth in this country.
Now I agree it is worthwhile to enforce the immigration laws. But I have all the reason in the world to be very suspicious of the people pushing this to the forefront of the national debate. It makes no sense.
RE: Don't these people have to scope of understanding
to figure out that they are going down on the wrong side of history here?
Meh, whatever. There is no way of knowing that. I'm all for equal rights and same sex marriage- I'm also for folks standing up for what they believe in, regardless of how silly I may think their beliefs are.
If you want to challenge the supreme court's ruling, this is how you do it.
You can find folks standing up for what they believe even when it looks like they're fighting a losing battle throughout history- and sometimes although they might not get exactly what they want, they accomplish something close. Prohibition is a perfect example. Folks like to laugh about it nowadays and cite the repealing of prohibition as proof that it doesn't work. Well, it really did work to some extent. Folks nowadays don't and possibly can't quite understand how out of control alcohol consumption was prior to prohibition- it was more of a plague on society than obesity is now. Although eventually repealed prohibition was the main reason this country was able to pull itself out of its drunken stupor.
Not sure if that relates at all to this issue, but opposition needs to be heard no matter how silly of dumb you think it is. Giving up because you think you're on the losing side is a loser mentality.
It's 'apples and oranges' when people who replace the rule of law with their interpretation of justice (and good vibes). Anyone who disagrees is stupid, bigoted, homophobic, etc.
Your post actually proved Bill's point about it not being apples and oranges.
The clerk needs to issue the licenses; the sanctuary cities need to enforce immigration laws (or insert your favorite law). While the laws being not enforced are different, they are both laws and both are required to be enforced.
No reason that this one needed to be taken over with some awful false equivalency.
Geezus the liberal mantra - false equivalency, false equivalency, false equivalency. Like parrots. If you don't agree with comparison its a false equivalency. Doesn't matter whether its a valid point or not - you don't like it scream false equivalency, like that has any validity. Catch phrases and cliches.
The point was you cannot selectively chose to enforce a laws you don't like.
The irony of it all is that she cites God's authority
and some people cite the Supreme Court's authority and neither have such authority as originally conceived when the Constitution was drafted. The elected official meaning her was to have such authority over these matters based on the laws of that state. Oh we have come a long way.
RE: The irony of it all is that she cites God's authority
and some people cite the Supreme Court's authority and neither have such authority as originally conceived when the Constitution was drafted. The elected official meaning her was to have such authority over these matters based on the laws of that state. Oh we have come a long way.
Can you say that in English?
And since when does the Supreme Court not have the final say on the validity of a law.
This woman is a perfect example of deliberately and purposefully ignorant bigotry. Why anyone in their right mind would spend time coming up with excuses for her insistance on substituting her ignorance for the reasoned judgement of the courts is beyond me.
She is not a bigot, and she really does have a religious objection. Isn't the answer resigning her post because she cannot lawfully carry it out. In other words, it should not be people's civil rights that are violated for her religious objection. She doesn't have to grant the licenses if she resigns. I would have 1,000,000 times more respect if she would do that. But, at bottom, it has nothing to with religion and everything to do with bigotry.
She is not a bigot, and she really does have a religious objection. Isn't the answer resigning her post because she cannot lawfully carry it out. In other words, it should not be people's civil rights that are violated for her religious objection. She doesn't have to grant the licenses if she resigns. I would have 1,000,000 times more respect if she would do that. But, at bottom, it has nothing to with religion and everything to do with bigotry.
After reading a bit, this 100%.
I typed my first post (like an idiot) before understanding her position and exactly what was going on. Couldn't have been more wrong.
Wait-'except I don't really know if it has anything more or less to do
Behind religion. So, the religious objection could at the same time be bigoted. However, my point is that even if you had a bigoted view based on religion, once you take a public oath to uphold the law, you must uphold that oath or resign. And, I would believe it was religion if she resigned and hurt herself rather than hurt innocent people.
But if someone pays a fine on my behalf, is that a taxable event?
Having a hard time seeing why it shouldn't be...
I believe it is
Not sure I agree with this. Nor have i come across it in my practice as a CPA. The liability has come about in a grey area. When this eventually reaches the top court you will have your answer. Granted it's law they have to give the license by law but then you violate this persons constitutional right to exercise their freedom of religion. Can't they just have another clerk issue the license?
RE: Wait-'except I don't really know if it has anything more or less to do
with religion or bigotry, and I don't think that really even matters- who cares if it is a religious or bigoted belief?
This has nothing at all to do with religion. Nothing about the civil institution of marriage has anything at all to do with religion or anyone's right to worship or to live by any set of values that religion proposes. Only bigotry can explain the need to insist that your own deliberate ignorance should dictate the rights of everyone else.
Behind religion. So, the religious objection could at the same time be bigoted. However, my point is that even if you had a bigoted view based on religion, once you take a public oath to uphold the law, you must uphold that oath or resign. And, I would believe it was religion if she resigned and hurt herself rather than hurt innocent people.
You put it much more eloquently than I. That's what I was trying to (poorly) say when I typed that it didn't matter if the belief comes from bigotry or religion- either way, it's her belief regardless.
RE: RE: Wait-'except I don't really know if it has anything more or less to do
with religion or bigotry, and I don't think that really even matters- who cares if it is a religious or bigoted belief?
This has nothing at all to do with religion. Nothing about the civil institution of marriage has anything at all to do with religion or anyone's right to worship or to live by any set of values that religion proposes. Only bigotry can explain the need to insist that your own deliberate ignorance should dictate the rights of everyone else.
Oh, I agree with you.
Problem is, we aren't talking about what you and I believe- we're talking about what this woman claims to believe.
and some people cite the Supreme Court's authority and neither have such authority as originally conceived when the Constitution was drafted. The elected official meaning her was to have such authority over these matters based on the laws of that state. Oh we have come a long way.
Can you say that in English?
And since when does the Supreme Court not have the final say on the validity of a law.
Since always. Judicial review is unconstitutional. There is no defined consequence for disobeying the Supreme Court opinion on any matter.
RE: RE: RE: The irony of it all is that she cites God's authority
and some people cite the Supreme Court's authority and neither have such authority as originally conceived when the Constitution was drafted. The elected official meaning her was to have such authority over these matters based on the laws of that state. Oh we have come a long way.
Can you say that in English?
And since when does the Supreme Court not have the final say on the validity of a law.
Since always. Judicial review is unconstitutional. There is no defined consequence for disobeying the Supreme Court opinion on any matter.
Live and learn, but don't really understand so I guess I haven't learned yet.
The supreme court has the power to uphold or overturn existing law. As such don't their opinions have consequences. In the specific case of this county clerk, she could be sent to jail, no?
Here are some laws that aren't actively enforced in the great state of Alabama (for arguments sake):
- It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
- Women may not wear a lewd dress in public.
- It is illegal to howl at ladies within the city limits.
- It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses.
I've posted only a few, for brevity's sake, as Alabama has a lot of dumb law on the books.
So if we follow BamaBlue's earlier point to its logical conclusion, I'm sure he'd agree that Alabama should immediately cease enforcement of all laws, and defund all public programs. For, if we can't trust our electeds to enfore these simple laws, why bother collecting taxes, building roads, paying police?
Or maybe you find this line of thinking bizarre. Like the rest of us.
But if someone pays a fine on my behalf, is that a taxable event?
Having a hard time seeing why it shouldn't be...
I believe it is
Not sure I agree with this. Nor have i come across it in my practice as a CPA. The liability has come about in a grey area. When this eventually reaches the top court you will have your answer. Granted it's law they have to give the license by law but then you violate this persons constitutional right to exercise their freedom of religion. Can't they just have another clerk issue the license?
I think we are talking across topics - I was inquiring if she would be liable for the taxes on any monies raised in some sort of online campaign, as other posters suggested.
And no one is violating her constitutional right - if a Muslim male were the clerk and refused entrance to any woman not wearing a burqa, how would that go over?
The idea of a god that is actually paying attention to us has been a cute one for a long time, but it's probably time for everyone to grow up already. At minimum at least stop trying to use mythology and superstition as an excuse to tell people what to do.
Dan Savage argued that she's in it for the money...
The idea of a god that is actually paying attention to us has been a cute one for a long time, but it's probably time for everyone to grow up already. At minimum at least stop trying to use mythology and superstition as an excuse to tell people what to do.
I'm pretty aligned with your view on religion as typed here.
The thing is, we live in a country of 350mil people- and the majority of them are believers. They have a voice and a say in the laws we make. You can't take that away.
That said- we also have a representative republic in place to ensure that the minority isn't denied rights because of the belief of the majority.
Point being- it goes both ways. You can't lecture people for trying to impose their biefs on other while you're simultaneously imposing your beliefs on them.
Here are some laws that aren't actively enforced in the great state of Alabama (for arguments sake):
- It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
- Women may not wear a lewd dress in public.
- It is illegal to howl at ladies within the city limits.
- It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses.
I've posted only a few, for brevity's sake, as Alabama has a lot of dumb law on the books.
So if we follow BamaBlue's earlier point to its logical conclusion, I'm sure he'd agree that Alabama should immediately cease enforcement of all laws, and defund all public programs. For, if we can't trust our electeds to enfore these simple laws, why bother collecting taxes, building roads, paying police?
Or maybe you find this line of thinking bizarre. Like the rest of us.
M.O. then couldn't you make the case that this Kentucky lady is no different in this regard?
was when the clerk told the gay couples that she is willing "to pay for my consequences, just as you'll have to pay for yours"
when one couple responded, "What consequences - there are no consequences" she said "On Judgment Day".
That alone should be means for termination as she not only is not fulfilling her duties, she is telling others what their fate is going to be based on her religious interpretation.
I'd still like to know what religious freedom of her's has been infringed on.
The idea of a god that is actually paying attention to us has been a cute one for a long time, but it's probably time for everyone to grow up already. At minimum at least stop trying to use mythology and superstition as an excuse to tell people what to do.
I'm pretty aligned with your view on religion as typed here.
The thing is, we live in a country of 350mil people- and the majority of them are believers. They have a voice and a say in the laws we make. You can't take that away.
That said- we also have a representative republic in place to ensure that the minority isn't denied rights because of the belief of the majority.
Point being- it goes both ways. You can't lecture people for trying to impose their biefs on other while you're simultaneously imposing your beliefs on them.
I get that, but I'm not imposing my beliefs on anyone. If someone doesn't believe in gay marriage or abortion or whatever, fine... Don't do those things. Just don't tell others that they can't.
Her job is, in part, to issue government documents.
This really is apples and oranges.
She, as a government representative, does not have the right to impose her religious beliefs onto other citizens while acting in accordance with her official capacity.
This is not about her choice to enforce a law, it's about her choice to not follow a law. It's up to another facet of government to decide whether or not to hold her accountable.
The main difference is, of all of the examples presented for comparison in this thread, not one of them involve the denial of civil rights by the government upon a citizen.
confuse the concept of religious freedom with the ability to tell other people what they should believe.
It actually should have the opposite effect, but it doesn't.
That's a side effect of religious organizations who promote prosthelytization. While most claim it is done in the name of spreading the "Good News" the real reason it is done is to expand the reach and coffers of the organization.
So much fraud is done in the name of religion. Organizationally, morally and mentally.
Here are some laws that aren't actively enforced in the great state of Alabama (for arguments sake):
- It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
- Women may not wear a lewd dress in public.
- It is illegal to howl at ladies within the city limits.
- It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses.
I've posted only a few, for brevity's sake, as Alabama has a lot of dumb law on the books.
So if we follow BamaBlue's earlier point to its logical conclusion, I'm sure he'd agree that Alabama should immediately cease enforcement of all laws, and defund all public programs. For, if we can't trust our electeds to enfore these simple laws, why bother collecting taxes, building roads, paying police?
Or maybe you find this line of thinking bizarre. Like the rest of us.
M.O. then couldn't you make the case that this Kentucky lady is no different in this regard?
No. Because in this case, she alone has taken it upon herself to deny citizens what most everyone else can do based only on her warped interpretation of doctrine.
If that isn't a problem for you, then I'm afraid we aren't going to see eye to eye on this.
But to conflate this with national immigration policy is intellectually dishonest.
As county clerk I am responsible for providing many services to the people of Rowan county. These duties include general categories of clerical duties of the fiscal court: issuing and registering, recording and keeping various legal records ... ~ Kim Davis Rowan County Clerk
No reason that this one needed to be taken over with some awful false equivalency.
And the point you are selectively ignoring is the President is doing no such thing. You can't strip him of authorities that have been legally used by all Presidents before him, and then, what, somehow magically expect the authority to come back when you get a president you like....
Geezus the liberal mantra - false equivalency, false equivalency, false equivalency. Like parrots. If you don't agree with comparison its a false equivalency. Doesn't matter whether its a valid point or not - you don't like it scream false equivalency, like that has any validity. Catch phrases and cliches.
The point was you cannot selectively chose to enforce a laws you don't like.
Not that I'm inclined to stand up for the woman, but she appears to be a relatively recent convert. Hence her past misdeeds aren't necessarily useful in judging her Christianity.
that a woman who has been married four times, and became pregnant by her third husband while still married to her first husband would stand on religious reasons as to why she can defy the Supreme Court, neglect her sworn-on-a-Bible duty, and deny marriage licenses.
I think their axiom is "I did all the shit I wanted and now am forgiven, so my goal in life is to tell everyone else in the world how to act. And I'm going to be as sanctimonious as possible in doing it!"
that a woman who has been married four times, and became pregnant by her third husband while still married to her first husband would stand on religious reasons as to why she can defy the Supreme Court, neglect her sworn-on-a-Bible duty, and deny marriage licenses.
Kim Davis, 49, who has defied the U.S. Supreme Court and continues to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex-couples, was married and divorced three times in 1994, 2006 and 2008, according to U.S. News & World Report.
She gave birth to twins five months after she divorced her first husband. The father of those twins was her third husband, according to the records.
Her second husband adopted the twins, the news magazine said.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Kim Davis was tearful while testifying of her religious faith at contempt hearing but stoic as marshal led her to jail.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Judge said fine for Kim Davis would not work b/c others apparently raising money to pay fines for her. ^
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Judge orders Clerk Kim Davis to jail until she complies with marriage license order. Led from courtroom by marshals.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
BREAKING: Judge sends Rowan Clerk #KimDavis to jail until she agrees to comply with his order to issue marriage licenses.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Kim Davis is in custody until she signs marriage licenses. Crowd outside erupts in applause
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Kim Davis' deputy clerks get half-hour to decide if they will obey court order or possibly join boss in jail. Meeting w/ lawyers.
Donald Trump said: "She's a nice lady but a really terrible martyr. Look at her there denying the licenses. Really low energy. Put me in charge and I'll show how to martyr. It will be great."
5 of her 6 deputy clerks can issue marriage licenses
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Judge Bunning said he does not lightly send Rowan Co clerk to jail. But "in this country, we live in a society of laws."
no one is asking you to be in a gay marriage. You aren't forced to perform a ceremony, you just are processing a form. It's ridiculous. And not very Christian I may add.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
"Our system of justice requires citizens - and significantly, elected officials - to follow the rules of the courts," Judge Bunning says.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Judge Bunning said he does not lightly send Rowan Co clerk to jail. But "in this country, we live in a society of laws."
no one is asking you to be in a gay marriage. You aren't forced to perform a ceremony, you just are processing a form. It's ridiculous. And not very Christian I may add.
She has previously stated that even if she didn't personally issue or sign the license that her name would still be on it and she couldn't abide by that. She has really forced the issue.
It's not her job to approve or disapprove legal marriages
For like ever that if a public official doesn't like something or want to do something in a local, county, or state operation they resign. Fine. Simple. You might get a few questions thrown your way as to why you decided to do that, but everyone moves on with their life, quickly, and it's a not a huge deal. That's what she should have done. Perhaps she desires the attention she's now getting. I wonder if she thought jail was ever a realistic possibility. We'll see I guess, depending on how quick she folds.
and rightly so. But why bother? He's a huckster and an opportunists...nothing more.
I still love how he stood by the Duggars after the child-molestation story came out but then dropped them altogether when he realized that they would bring his image down. And this from a family that espoused "family value" according to their views when their son was an adulterous child molester and they were complicit in keeping it hush hush.
and rightly so. But why bother? He's a huckster and an opportunists...nothing more.
Well Chris Christie and Donald Trump just promised to endorse Huck should he win the nomination, and I suspect all the other candidates will fall in line too.
RE: RE: Yes, we can call Huckabee things worse than
and rightly so. But why bother? He's a huckster and an opportunists...nothing more.
Well Chris Christie and Donald Trump just promised to endorse Huck should he win the nomination, and I suspect all the other candidates will fall in line too.
and rightly so. But why bother? He's a huckster and an opportunists...nothing more.
Well Chris Christie and Donald Trump just promised to endorse Huck should he win the nomination, and I suspect all the other candidates will fall in line too.
So you have two other opportunists promising to endorse this clown...how does that make what I posted wrong?
The judge said jail was the only option as fines were very likely going to be paid by third parties - is that a taxable event for this woman? Is it because the individual donations don't exceed the $14,000 mark, even though they may in aggregate?
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Five deputy clerks willing to follow the law seems adequate, Judge Bunning said. He won't hold Kim Davis' son, Nathan, in contempt.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Faced w/ contempt & jail, 5 of Kim Davis' 6 deputy clerks tell judge they would be OK issuing marriage licenses to all. Her son says no.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
One way or another, Judge Bunning says, couples need to be able to walk into Rowan Co clerk office Friday morning and get license.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Judge will hold new hearing at 3:30 to decide if her deputies agreeing to give licenses over her objections makes jailing her unneeded.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Kim Davis will return to courtroom at 3:30 & tell judge if she's willing to let her deputies obey law over her objections. If not, jail.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Kim Davis will return to courtroom at 3:30 & tell judge if she's willing to let her deputies obey law over her objections. If not, jail.
Well...I guess we'll see just how strong her conviction is. Or if she'll save herself from being thrown in jail and save face by allowing her deputies to carry out the duties.
In comment 12451479 sphinx said:Quote:Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Kim Davis will return to courtroom at 3:30 & tell judge if she's willing to let her deputies obey law over her objections. If not, jail.
Well...I guess we'll see just how strong her conviction is. Or if she'll save herself from being thrown in jail and save face by allowing her deputies to carry out the duties.
Her name will still be on the license and she said that was the reson she wouldn't allow her clerks to issue them. Now? We'll see.
Bunning initially ordered Davis to remain in jail until she agrees to comply with his Aug. 12 order, but he scheduled a new hearing for 3:30 p.m. to reconsider that decision after her deputies said they would issue licenses in her absence.
Tennessee judge that won't let a straight couple get divorced because of the recent supreme court decision. He apparently feels he's no longer allowed to say anything about marriage anymore.
Quote:
The Tennessee Court of Appeals has noted that Obergefell v. Hodges, affected what is, and must be recognized as, a lawful marriage in the State of Tennessee. This leaves a mere trial level Tennessee state court judge in a bit of a quandary.
...
With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessees judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.
and check out the second graf here, lol. Dude had a tantrum.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Kim Davis tells judge she'd rather stay in jail than cooperate with her deputies giving marriage licenses. OK, jail it is, judge says.
Dominic Holden @dominicholden
Davis did not come back to the courtroom as requested. She spoke through her attorneys. Remains in custody indefinitely.
but how can the deputy give a marriage license without the consent of the elected clerk? It's like the White House Chief of Staff signing a bill into law without the consent of the President, no? Or a judge's clerk signing an order.
It is the signature of the person with power -- judge, clerk, or President -- that makes the deed official. If the deputy signs a marriage license over the objection of the elected clerk, is the marriage legal?
RE: RE: Yes, we can call Huckabee things worse than
and rightly so. But why bother? He's a huckster and an opportunists...nothing more.
Well Chris Christie and Donald Trump just promised to endorse Huck should he win the nomination, and I suspect all the other candidates will fall in line too.
Idiot. What, they signed a no third party run agreement and that is what you equate.. Huckabee has a snowballs' chance in hell of getting nominated to dog catcher. Talk about talking out your ass.
but how can the deputy give a marriage license without the consent of the elected clerk? It's like the White House Chief of Staff signing a bill into law without the consent of the President, no? Or a judge's clerk signing an order.
It is the signature of the person with power -- judge, clerk, or President -- that makes the deed official. If the deputy signs a marriage license over the objection of the elected clerk, is the marriage legal?
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Kim Davis said 5 of her 6 deputy clerks can issue marriage licenses, too.
Remember, she's stopped marriage licenses from being issued. Period. To anyone. Question is, can she stop her office from serving the taxpayers?
Does she continue to draw her salary while she's...
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Judge Bunning warns Rowan Co deputy clerks their office better open Friday and comply. Couples plan to be there for licenses.
Starting tomorrow, is it business as usual at the Clerk's office, with marriage licenses for all eligible couples? And Davis sits in a cell until she's formerly given her walking papers, or until she agrees to not interfere with the obligations of her office?
Joe Dunman @JoeDunman
Hearing concluded. Clerk in custody. Deputies to issue licenses tomorrow, though they expressed reluctance but for contempt threat.
Upon hearing her excuse, God issued the following statement
Chris Hampton @ACLUChris
Cty atty on Davis: "A foolish mission aided by out of state charlatan lawyers trying to raise money for their 'religious liberty' mission."
Joe Dunman @JoeDunman
Hearing concluded. Clerk in custody. Deputies to issue licenses tomorrow, though they expressed reluctance but for contempt threat.
Good. Sounds like the judge made his determination on this point pretty clear.
but how can the deputy give a marriage license without the consent of the elected clerk? It's like the White House Chief of Staff signing a bill into law without the consent of the President, no? Or a judge's clerk signing an order.
It is the signature of the person with power -- judge, clerk, or President -- that makes the deed official. If the deputy signs a marriage license over the objection of the elected clerk, is the marriage legal?
I'm not a lawyer but this seems to answer your question. Does it?
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure TITLE VIII. PROVISIONAL AND FINAL REMEDIES
Rule 70. Enforcing a Judgment for a Specific Act
(a) Party's Failure to Act; Ordering Another to Act. If a judgment requires a party to convey land, to deliver a deed or other document, or to perform any other specific act and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may order the act to be doneat the disobedient party's expenseby another person appointed by the court. When done, the act has the same effect as if done by the party.
(b) Vesting Title. If the real or personal property is within the district, the courtinstead of ordering a conveyancemay enter a judgment divesting any party's title and vesting it in others. That judgment has the effect of a legally executed conveyance.
(c) Obtaining a Writ of Attachment or Sequestration. On application by a party entitled to performance of an act, the clerk must issue a writ of attachment or sequestration against the disobedient party's property to compel obedience.
(d) Obtaining a Writ of Execution or Assistance. On application by a party who obtains a judgment or order for possession, the clerk must issue a writ of execution or assistance.
(e) Holding in Contempt. The court may also hold the disobedient party in contempt. Link - ( New Window )
RE: Upon hearing her excuse, God issued the following statement
that's a good catch. I dont know that I've ever read FRCP 70 before (it's funny--you go to the rules you need and ignore everything else).
So if her office is going to issue licenses and she isnt stopping that, why does she need to be in jail? I assume the original ruling was that these people are entitled to get a marriage license in that county. If they're getting that, shouldnt Davis be let go?
that's a good catch. I dont know that I've ever read FRCP 70 before (it's funny--you go to the rules you need and ignore everything else).
So if her office is going to issue licenses and she isnt stopping that, why does she need to be in jail? I assume the original ruling was that these people are entitled to get a marriage license in that county. If they're getting that, shouldnt Davis be let go?
She wouldn't agree not to interfere, per the Chicago Tribune ...
The judge later sought a resolution to keep Davis out of jail after all. He overruled an objection from her lawyer, who argued that her six deputy clerks cannot act against her authority. And he called each one before him to declare whether they intend to follow the law. All but the clerk's son, Nathan Davis, promised to comply.
The judge said Nathan Davis' position wouldn't matter, and that his mother could go free as long as she promised not to interfere with issuing of marriage licenses to all couples. But Kim Davis rejected the offer, her attorneys later said.
she has no problem breaking the oath she took when she swore on the Bible to uphold the laws.
A Statement of Faith of the Apostolic Christian Church
[...]2.1 Christian Integrity
We believe that it is a major Christian obligation to be strictly truthful and transparent in life and doctrine, with no secrecy or hypocrisy.98 Although the swearing of oaths was permitted in Old Testament times, it is forbidden by Christ.99 Christians are obligated to speak the truth because they are always in the presence of God.100
Therefore we simply affirm the truth in legal transactions. Our membership is not to be in lodges and secret societies which require the use of oaths and foster the formation of intimate alliances with unbelievers.101 Instead, we seek to promote fellowship and brotherhood in the church.102
12 But above all, my brethren, n do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your "Yes" be "Yes," and your "No," "No," lest you fall into 9 judgment.
***********************************
Matthew 5:33-37
OATHS
33 "Again you have heard that m it was said to those of 1 old, n 'You shall not swear falsely, but o shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' 34 "But I say to you, p do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is q God's throne; 35 "nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of r the great King. 36 "Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 s "But let 2 your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one. Link - ( New Window )
Kim Davis thinks she has a solution to her problem.
The Kentucky county clerk, jailed for failing to follow a judges orders to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, wants her name removed from the marriage certificates, her attorney Matthew Staver told ABC News.
She has a very strong conscience and shes just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well, Staver said. That simple remedy has simply been ignored by the court and by the governor and thats what should have been done.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Kim Davis is "in good spirits" in jail, ready to stay for however long it takes to defend her beliefs, husband Joe Davis says.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Kim Davis' husband tells reporters in Morehead that Judge Bunning is a coward & a bully.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Smith & Yates, first couple to get Rowan Co marriage license since Supreme Court decision, says they have to set the date now.
Kim Davis thinks she has a solution to her problem.
The Kentucky county clerk, jailed for failing to follow a judges orders to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, wants her name removed from the marriage certificates, her attorney Matthew Staver told ABC News.
She has a very strong conscience and shes just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well, Staver said. That simple remedy has simply been ignored by the court and by the governor and thats what should have been done. Link - ( New Window )
Well, it has to be signed by someone. I'm guessing the law says it has to be the person who holds her job.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Kim Davis is "in good spirits" in jail, ready to stay for however long it takes to defend her beliefs, husband Joe Davis says.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Kim Davis' husband tells reporters in Morehead that Judge Bunning is a coward & a bully.
He'll be ex-husband number 4 any day now...
RE: And my question from yesterday remains (nod to gidiefor)
The judge said jail was the only option as fines were very likely going to be paid by third parties - is that a taxable event for this woman? Is it because the individual donations don't exceed the $14,000 mark, even though they may in aggregate?
actually -- individuals are allowed to give gifts to another individual up to the amount set by IRS and State regs that are excluded from taxation -- so by extension multiple individuals can give gifts and in aggregate exceed the minimum --
for instance a couple can each give their child and the childs husband (in aggregate 4X the maximum gift allowable) - if the allowable gift exclusion is $10,000 -- then the husband can give the child and their spouse each $10,000 and the wife can give the child and their spouse each $10,000 -- resulting in a $40,000 gift under the exclusion
Dick and Liz Chaney have said that Davis should "do her damn job"
The judge said jail was the only option as fines were very likely going to be paid by third parties - is that a taxable event for this woman? Is it because the individual donations don't exceed the $14,000 mark, even though they may in aggregate?
actually -- individuals are allowed to give gifts to another individual up to the amount set by IRS and State regs that are excluded from taxation -- so by extension multiple individuals can give gifts and in aggregate exceed the minimum --
for instance a couple can each give their child and the childs husband (in aggregate 4X the maximum gift allowable) - if the allowable gift exclusion is $10,000 -- then the husband can give the child and their spouse each $10,000 and the wife can give the child and their spouse each $10,000 -- resulting in a $40,000 gift under the exclusion
Umm....There is no limit to what you can give somebody....
RE: Dick and Liz Chaney have said that Davis should
The judge said jail was the only option as fines were very likely going to be paid by third parties - is that a taxable event for this woman? Is it because the individual donations don't exceed the $14,000 mark, even though they may in aggregate?
actually -- individuals are allowed to give gifts to another individual up to the amount set by IRS and State regs that are excluded from taxation -- so by extension multiple individuals can give gifts and in aggregate exceed the minimum --
for instance a couple can each give their child and the childs husband (in aggregate 4X the maximum gift allowable) - if the allowable gift exclusion is $10,000 -- then the husband can give the child and their spouse each $10,000 and the wife can give the child and their spouse each $10,000 -- resulting in a $40,000 gift under the exclusion
Umm....There is no limit to what you can give somebody....
Yes -- it's true -- there's no limit to the amount you can give -- however -- gifts are all subject to gift tax -- however there are maximum amounts established that fall under an exclusion to paying gift tax
The judge said jail was the only option as fines were very likely going to be paid by third parties - is that a taxable event for this woman? Is it because the individual donations don't exceed the $14,000 mark, even though they may in aggregate?
actually -- individuals are allowed to give gifts to another individual up to the amount set by IRS and State regs that are excluded from taxation -- so by extension multiple individuals can give gifts and in aggregate exceed the minimum --
for instance a couple can each give their child and the childs husband (in aggregate 4X the maximum gift allowable) - if the allowable gift exclusion is $10,000 -- then the husband can give the child and their spouse each $10,000 and the wife can give the child and their spouse each $10,000 -- resulting in a $40,000 gift under the exclusion
Umm....There is no limit to what you can give somebody....
Yes -- it's true -- there's no limit to the amount you can give -- however -- gifts are all subject to gift tax -- however there are maximum amounts established that fall under an exclusion to paying gift tax
For clarification, and I actually Googled Kentucky Estate and Gift Taxes:
* The federal annual exemption amount is $14,000 per donee. So the maximum contained in giddie's post should actually be $56,000 between couples.
* Gifts above that amount count against a lifetime exemption amount of roughly $5.4 million per person. Above that they would be subject to gift tax.
* Kentucky has no gift tax but does have an inheritance tax, but it only applies to gifts made within 3 years of the donors death.
I am completely uninterested in how this dipshit might pay fines
In comment 12452843 sphinx said:Quote:Kim Davis thinks she has a solution to her problem.
The Kentucky county clerk, jailed for failing to follow a judges orders to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, wants her name removed from the marriage certificates, her attorney Matthew Staver told ABC News.
She has a very strong conscience and shes just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well, Staver said. That simple remedy has simply been ignored by the court and by the governor and thats what should have been done. Link - ( New Window )
Well, it has to be signed by someone. I'm guessing the law says it has to be the person who holds her job.
No, the County Clerk doesn't have to sign the license. One of the deputy clerks can sign. Her name, however, appears on the license showing where it was issued. That is what she wants to remove. Here's a copy of her marriage license from 2009. Her name is on licenses now issued by her office where her 2009 license shows "Jean W. Bailey", her predecessor ...
RE: I am completely uninterested in how this dipshit might pay fines
Yes...and that's definitely something they should be making fun of him (Joe Davis) about, especially since he's married her twice, right? Didn't learn from his first mistake.
The issue comes down to why are people insulting hillbillies? They didn't do anything wrong to be put in the same group as this jackass.
In comment 12453684 WideRight said:Quote:for example
Yes...and that's definitely something they should be making fun of him (Joe Davis) about, especially since he's married her twice, right? Didn't learn from his first mistake.
The issue comes down to why are people insulting hillbillies? They didn't do anything wrong to be put in the same group as this jackass.
Well, ole Joe made the public claim himself ...
Im an old redneck hillbilly, thats all Ive got to say. Dont come knocking on my door.
Because agreeing with anything Dick Chaney agrees on terrifies me, I think I might switch to pro-Kim Davis.
Either Liz has turned Dick into a social liberal, or Halliburton is moving in on the gay marriage market.
My guess:
"Mary Claire Cheney (born March 14, 1969) is the second daughter of Dick Cheney, the former Vice President of the United States, and his wife, Lynne Cheney. She is politically conservative and is involved with a number of political action groups.[1]
She is openly lesbian, has voiced support for same-sex marriage, and has been credited with encouraging her father to support same-sex marriage.[2]"
In comment 12452843 sphinx said:Quote:Kim Davis thinks she has a solution to her problem.
The Kentucky county clerk, jailed for failing to follow a judges orders to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, wants her name removed from the marriage certificates, her attorney Matthew Staver told ABC News.
She has a very strong conscience and shes just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well, Staver said. That simple remedy has simply been ignored by the court and by the governor and thats what should have been done. Link - ( New Window )
Well, it has to be signed by someone. I'm guessing the law says it has to be the person who holds her job.
No, the County Clerk doesn't have to sign the license. One of the deputy clerks can sign. Her name, however, appears on the license showing where it was issued. That is what she wants to remove. Here's a copy of her marriage license from 2009. Her name is on licenses now issued by her office where her 2009 license shows "Jean W. Bailey", her predecessor ...
Ummmm, it is common for other states to list "relationship to other parties" on their wedding licences???? I don't recall seeing that on my CA wedding licence...
A tweet ...
Melanie Kendall @MelanieKendall
Here's a picture of April Miller and Karen Roberts' marriage license - Kim Davis' name is not on it
On Kim Davis' license posted earlier, it reads ... in the office of Jean W. Bailey Rowan County Clerk. On the license issued to Miller and Roberts this morning it just seems to say, in the office of Rowan County Clerk. Melanie Kendall (an ABC36News reporter), who posted the above tweet and pic confirms Kim Davis' name does not appear on it, which should put Davis in good standing with her god according to her lawyer and may get her out of the hoosegow.
But if she leaves the hoosegow, she'll have to stop milking her
In a statement Kim Davis released thru the Liberty Council on Sept 1 she said, To issue a marriage license which conflicts with Gods definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.(LINK)
This morning her lawyer said, She has a very strong conscience and shes just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well,.
Moving on to Kentucky law ... Kentucky Revised Statutes reads ...
****************************************** 402.110 Marriage license to be uniform and completely filled out.
The form of marriage license prescribed in KRS 402.100 shall be uniform throughout this state ... LINK
*******************************************
Now moving to aforementioned KRS 402.100, it says ...
****************************************** 402.100 Marriage license -- Marriage certificate -- Confidentiality of Social Security numbers.
Each county clerk shall use the form prescribed by the Department for Libraries and Archives when issuing a marriage license. This form shall provide for the entering of all of the information required in this section, and may also provide for the entering of additional information prescribed by the Department for Libraries and Archives. The
form shall consist of:
(1) A marriage license which provides for the entering of:
(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;
(b) Vital information for each party, including the full name, date of birth, place of birth, race, condition (single, widowed, or divorced), number of previous
marriages, occupation, current residence, relationship to the other party, and full names of parents; and
(c) The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license. LINK
************************************
I'm in no way trained in the legal profession but I see NO requirement in the statutes for her name to on the license. A license issued this morning omitted her name (see previous post). It seems that's all she had to do from the getgo, leave her name off the license. Again, I'm getting the sense this whole thing has been orchestrated bullshit. If I'm missing some point or misinterpreted a point, I'm open for correction.
the ACLU lawyers involved in this have been openly suggesting (in press statements) that the law firm/advocacy group representing Kim Davis has been the main driving force behind her actions.
"We don't serve your kind" is discrimination, pure and simple. It's un-American. We know that. Kim Davis knows that.
What the opponents of marriage equality needed, what Bryan Fischer and Tony Perkins and all the desperate homophobes of the Liberty Counsel had to have to stay in business for another year, was a martyr. (They almost had it with those "no wedding pizza for gays" people, but then that GoFundMe page came along and made them rich.) They needed a timid, God-fearing person to be hauled off to prison.
They got that today.
Kim Davis, because of her deeply-held belief in a religion to which she converted four years ago (her whole thing makes so much more sense when you think about how fresh she is to Christianity, doesn't it? Hers is the zeal of the brand-new convert. It's like she's six months into Crossfit) refused to issue marriage licenses out of her office so that she would never endorse a same-sex union with her signature, and now she's going to jail. As Mark Joseph Stern points out in Slate, good lawyers lawyers who are working for the good of their clients, not lawyers who are trying to stay relevant in a world that has outgrown themtend to do what they can to keep their clients out of jail. The Liberty Counsel, who counsels for the liberty to oppress gay people and pretty much nothing else, should be out of business in 2015. When we get that picture of Kim Davis in handcuffs, they'll have the image they need to stay afloat until 2025.
of course Kim Davis is doing fine in jail. It's far more comfortable than the hell in which she'll be spending eternity for being a Bible-defying adulterer and a judgmental bigot.
whether gays should have the right to marry, I probably would have said no. Now if someone hasnt moved on that issue as quickly as the rest of us have, she's just a bigot? Has she even said anything bad about gays or gay marriage beyond the fact that her religion doesnt allow it so she cant actively participate in it (honest question)?
whether gays should have the right to marry, I probably would have said no. Now if someone hasnt moved on that issue as quickly as the rest of us have, she's just a bigot? Has she even said anything bad about gays or gay marriage beyond the fact that her religion doesnt allow it so she cant actively participate in it (honest question)?
This remains an unfortunate situation to me.
Yes, she's just a bigot. She's not someone lacking the relevant information to make a better choice. She knows all the same things about homosexuality that progressive people know. She's free to discard that knowledge in favor of what her magic book tells her, but there is now a social price to be paid for that.
whether gays should have the right to marry, I probably would have said no. Now if someone hasnt moved on that issue as quickly as the rest of us have, she's just a bigot? Has she even said anything bad about gays or gay marriage beyond the fact that her religion doesnt allow it so she cant actively participate in it (honest question)?
This remains an unfortunate situation to me.
Yes, she's just a bigot. She's not someone lacking the relevant information to make a better choice. She knows all the same things about homosexuality that progressive people know. She's free to discard that knowledge in favor of what her magic book tells her, but there is now a social price to be paid for that.
Not sure why you use the unnecessary term "magic book" to insult all believers, most of who understand the difference between having a belief, and using your belief as a government worker to violstr their rights. I find you to be a bigot also.
I respect your opinions on here, but yes, I think she is a bigot. She is hiding behind inconsistent religious beliefs to openly discriminate against a group of people. Never mind that she's a hypocritical adulterer who besmirches the sanctity and religious definition of marriage, but there is no indication that she has ever inquired whether couples seeking marriage certificates had been married before.
No, her indignation and religious fervor stems only from whether two people of the same sex want to marry each other.
whether gays should have the right to marry, I probably would have said no. Now if someone hasnt moved on that issue as quickly as the rest of us have, she's just a bigot? Has she even said anything bad about gays or gay marriage beyond the fact that her religion doesnt allow it so she cant actively participate in it (honest question)?
This remains an unfortunate situation to me.
Yes, she's just a bigot. She's not someone lacking the relevant information to make a better choice. She knows all the same things about homosexuality that progressive people know. She's free to discard that knowledge in favor of what her magic book tells her, but there is now a social price to be paid for that.
Not sure why you use the unnecessary term "magic book" to insult all believers, most of who understand the difference between having a belief, and using your belief as a government worker to violstr their rights. I find you to be a bigot also.
That's perfectly fine. But you might take a moment to examine the difference between you and I. You try to insult me by calling me a bigot. I dismiss that as silly - because "bigot" is a word with a fairly firm objective meaning, and one that I don't come close to meeting.
Before that, I tried to insult Kim Davis by saying she took instruction from a magic book. In response, you not only took offense on her behalf, but your own behalf, and on behalf of "all believers." That's a lot of offense being taken. Maybe you want to ask yourself why? I'm not a bigot, and being called one doesn't bother me. If the Bible is not essentially a magic book, why concern yourself with someone who calls it one?
really simple minded and brainwashed by her church/religion. And so what if your church is against it, you are not being forced to marry a woman. You took a government job, you have to follow their rules. What if a Catholic refused to issue licenses to divorced people because in the Catholic faith, divorcees can't remarry.
And for the record, I've always been for making gay marriage legal. A license is not some holy creed from God. It's a legal contract and follows secular law. If you want 'holy matrimony' you have to go through all the BS that you need to get married in a church. I would not support forcing churches to marry gays or anyone they don't want to. But who really gives a crap who other people marry? It's absurd.
It's unfortunate that none of the her church's elders pointed this out to her during the months she refused to issue licenses to anyone ... assuming she attended services on a regular basis ...
From the Apostolic Christian Church's Statement of Faith ...
Governmental authority is respected and obeyed. Members serve in a non-combatant status in the military. Oaths are not taken, but truth is affirmed.
whether gays should have the right to marry, I probably would have said no. Now if someone hasnt moved on that issue as quickly as the rest of us have, she's just a bigot? Has she even said anything bad about gays or gay marriage beyond the fact that her religion doesnt allow it so she cant actively participate in it (honest question)?
This remains an unfortunate situation to me.
Yes, she's just a bigot. She's not someone lacking the relevant information to make a better choice. She knows all the same things about homosexuality that progressive people know. She's free to discard that knowledge in favor of what her magic book tells her, but there is now a social price to be paid for that.
Not sure why you use the unnecessary term "magic book" to insult all believers, most of who understand the difference between having a belief, and using your belief as a government worker to violstr their rights. I find you to be a bigot also.
That's perfectly fine. But you might take a moment to examine the difference between you and I. You try to insult me by calling me a bigot. I dismiss that as silly - because "bigot" is a word with a fairly firm objective meaning, and one that I don't come close to meeting.
Before that, I tried to insult Kim Davis by saying she took instruction from a magic book. In response, you not only took offense on her behalf, but your own behalf, and on behalf of "all believers." That's a lot of offense being taken. Maybe you want to ask yourself why? I'm not a bigot, and being called one doesn't bother me. If the Bible is not essentially a magic book, why concern yourself with someone who calls it one?
I could probably write a page in response but I don't have the strength or desire at the moment and I would probably just bore the board so I will let each of our responses stand on their own. The only comment I will make is to not assume what my religious views are. A lot closer to yours than you probably assume.
You were succinct and on point enough in the first place
Staver, Davis' attorney, said he will file legal actions to appeal the contempt finding and to have the clerk released from jail, although he could not predict how long this might take.
Davis never expected to find herself behind bars in an orange jumpsuit, Staver said, but she "slept well last night. She slept with a very good conscience."
Outside the Rowan County courthouse Friday, Davis' husband, Joe, said he spoke to his wife by telephone late Thursday, and he reported "she's in good spirits."
"She will stay in there for however long it takes, (I hope)" Joe Davis said. "She will not back down. She'll never resign (I hope). Nope."
Disclaimer: Parens added by me doing a little mind reading.
Was there a reason she couldn't do the truly principled thing
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
CNN files motion asking Judge Bunning for right to do jailhouse interview with Rowan Co Clerk Kim Davis, says Davis is willing.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
CNN files motion asking Judge Bunning for right to do jailhouse interview with Rowan Co Clerk Kim Davis, says Davis is willing.
Bluegrass Politics
Rowan Co couples file their new marriage licenses in court at judge's request. Kim Davis' name removed from form; signed by deputies.
Judge releases Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis from jail,
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
As Kim Davis leaves jail, she is asked if she'll let deputies issue marriage licenses. "She will not violate her conscious," lawyer says
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Gov. Beshear: Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis' religious freedoms never were trampled upon, she failed to do her legal duties as a clerk.
RE: Judge releases Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis from jail,
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
As Kim Davis leaves jail, she is asked if she'll let deputies issue marriage licenses. "She will not violate her conscious," lawyer says
Good. I hope she interferes, and ends up right back in jail. C*nt...
What an unintentionally hilarious shit show, trotting this woman out to rocky theme music. It was really cringe worthy listening to huckabee. He may have best intentions (aside from the obvious selfish poll boost he hopes to get from this of course), but its almost sad watching a guy so clearly and defiantly on the wrong side of history. Felt like i was watching a modern day George Wallace
About his poll numbers - he isn't a politician, he is a brand, and everything he says and does should be viewed as advertising that brand to his core consumers.
Westboro Baptist @WBCSaysRepent
Kim Davis took an oath before God to obey ALL LAWS! So she must:
1 Obey the law!
2 Put away adultery!
3 PROTEST SIN!
Westboro Baptist
@WBCSaysRepent Westboro Baptist retweeted Raw Story
Get this straight: you can NOT repent of a sin you actively live. Kim must leave that man who's not her husband.
Westboro Baptist @WBCSaysRepent
Stay tuned for WBC video news w words about #KimDavis. Famous for adultery & govt tyranny: grievous sins against God.
I don't agree with her view, but I can respect that she has one and I think that she is welcome to her beliefs. But then she needs to quit.
I don't agree with her view, but I can respect that she has one and I think that she is welcome to her beliefs. But then she needs to quit.
What I said wasn't an argument about whether or not she should be denying the licenses. There isn't an argument there.
I was posing a more general question about understanding where one's actions fit amongst society. But then again, probably everyone in her life is homophobic and/or against gay rights, so I guess it's tough to have a broad perspective when you're living amongst your own little bubble/community.
Quote:
she's employed and it's her work function.
I don't agree with her view, but I can respect that she has one and I think that she is welcome to her beliefs. But then she needs to quit.
What I said wasn't an argument about whether or not she should be denying the licenses. There isn't an argument there.
I was posing a more general question about understanding where one's actions fit amongst society. But then again, probably everyone in her life is homophobic and/or against gay rights, so I guess it's tough to have a broad perspective when you're living amongst your own little bubble/community.
That's an interesting question because I would argue that she and her community have the same rights to do and believe and hang together as the gay community or any other community. But all that is superseded by the law. I think it's great that she has principles but if she truly had them, then she needs to find a new line of work. Failing that, she has to fulfill her job requirements.
Exactly. She isn't doing her job so she needs to lose it. If they want to keep her then she should be held in contempt and fined or jailed. Whether she agrees with the law is irrelevant, her job is to issue a marriage license to those who meet the legal requirements not biblical requirements.
Quote:
In comment 12446735 Bill L said:
Quote:
she's employed and it's her work function.
I don't agree with her view, but I can respect that she has one and I think that she is welcome to her beliefs. But then she needs to quit.
What I said wasn't an argument about whether or not she should be denying the licenses. There isn't an argument there.
I was posing a more general question about understanding where one's actions fit amongst society. But then again, probably everyone in her life is homophobic and/or against gay rights, so I guess it's tough to have a broad perspective when you're living amongst your own little bubble/community.
That's an interesting question because I would argue that she and her community have the same rights to do and believe and hang together as the gay community or any other community. But all that is superseded by the law. I think it's great that she has principles but if she truly had them, then she needs to find a new line of work. Failing that, she has to fulfill her job requirements.
How likely do you think it is that she takes this principled stand and quits her job?
I think a more likely scenerio is a GD circus, with morons filing petions with the governors office to reinstate her. Fair and balanced inverviews on Fox News championing her bravery in standing up to a tyrannical and hedonistic government. You get the picture.
There's nothing brave or principled here.
Wah, poor straight people can't understand the bible and choose to ignore the law.
We have enough of them here alone as examples.
And the she falls for Big Bertha that she's sharing a cell with. This shit writes itself!
How about not conflating two separate issues?
I actually think that you have a point there as well. The law is the law.
Quote:
how about some consistency?
I actually think that you have a point there as well. The law is the law.
Not really. Federal agencies and and municipalities choose to ignore laws that they deem archaic all the time.
I know this is a big thing right now, but I don't get it. If she thinks same-sex marriage is a sin, she shouldn't marry a woman. Lots of people commit lots of sins, it's not her job to prevent people from sinning, it's her job to issue marriage licenses to people who legally qualify for them.
I am unfamiliar with Kentucky laws, but this would be easily solved if someone else in that office had the authority to issue the licenses. What happens when she goes on vacation and a heterosexual couple comes into the office and wants a license?
Would someone please think of the children?
Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins says the federal court alerted him that a hearing is scheduled for 11 a.m. Thursday in Ashland.
Watkins says clerk Kim Davis is summonsed to attend, along with all the deputy clerks who work in her office.
Quote:
how about some consistency?
I actually think that you have a point there as well. The law is the law.
Isn't that currently being litigated?
This is more like a government authority forcing their beliefs on other people. Would you also agree if she refused to give marriage licenses to people who were divorced? Some churches believe that divorced people should not marry again.
And I don't see the argument about standing up for her beliefs - at their core, her belief is discriminatory and hateful - what is the honor is standing up for that?
I'm not Catholic, but IIRC the Catholic Church will not perform marriages for people who have been divorced. Some will not even give communion.
Quote:
That the gays would impose their beliefs on the various houses of worship.
This is more like a government authority forcing their beliefs on other people. Would you also agree if she refused to give marriage licenses to people who were divorced? Some churches believe that divorced people should not marry again.
I couldnt care less. What a given church believes or doesn't believe is immaterial to law.
Quote:
is just deafening regarding gay marriage. 40- 50% of married straight people get divorced in this country. The catholic religion is very straightforward about that--unless you choose to ignore it. You know, for your own purposes.
I'm not Catholic, but IIRC the Catholic Church will not perform marriages for people who have been divorced. Some will not even give communion.
Fun fact - the right Church will allow you to "pay" for an annulment, even in the case of a multi-year marriage with children.
You're just so way off, here. This is a case of two people going to a government office and being denied a license to which they have a right because the office's clerk objects to the law on religious grounds.
Your contorting it into some Obama criticism is absurd and pretty pathetic. No one is going to Obama and asking him to provide him or her with a rightful entitlement, with Obama refusing it based on a religious objection.
Come on. Think a little.
Quote:
She'll make a sweet jailhouse martyr for her cause, though.
And the she falls for Big Bertha that she's sharing a cell with. This shit writes itself!
And then when she gets out, they secretly vacation together. Pretending to fish, but really longing for the days of herding sheep on the mountain.
Quote:
how about some consistency?
Quote:
In comment 12446781 BamaBlue said:
Quote:
how about some consistency?
WHy is it apples and oranges? Why are you entitled to flout the law sometimes when it suits you and not others? Bear in mind that I think the clerk is completely in the wrong. But this side question intrigues me.
It happens all the time.
Yeah this. I respect her conscience even though I disagree with the conclusions to which it leads her. But if you find your conscience incompatible with what you're asked to do as part of a job you took and maintain voluntarily, you need to stop doing it. It is all well and good, in many cases admirable, that you conscientiously object to the duties of being a soldier, but you should not have signed on in the first place and if the duties or your conscience changed in the meantime such that you can no longer perform those duties America is not obligated to continue to cut you a check to do only those duties that comport with your moral compass.
Quote:
In comment 12446810 Randy in CT said:
Quote:
is just deafening regarding gay marriage. 40- 50% of married straight people get divorced in this country. The catholic religion is very straightforward about that--unless you choose to ignore it. You know, for your own purposes.
I'm not Catholic, but IIRC the Catholic Church will not perform marriages for people who have been divorced. Some will not even give communion.
Fun fact - the right Church will allow you to "pay" for an annulment, even in the case of a multi-year marriage with children.
They were (maybe still are) called "indulgences."
She can find a job in the private sector where she can exercise her beliefs to her hearts content.
Quote:
In comment 12446781 BamaBlue said:
Quote:
how about some consistency?
WHy is it apples and oranges? Why are you entitled to flout the law sometimes when it suits you and not others? Bear in mind that I think the clerk is completely in the wrong. But this side question intrigues me.
The main difference is that Presidents, historically, have had lots of leeway to set "prosecutorial priority" and regulations and policy that further specifies what to do in interpreting the gaps in the law. Obama's immigration changes are, in theory, being made in agreement with that precedent. Reagan and Bush 1 have done things that are at least similar on face value. The courts will figure out if Obama has gone too far, as I think that stuff will be challenged. This is an orange.
This lady is a county clerk. She's not been given, nor have holders of her office been given, authority to make any changes to how she discharges her duties. The legality of her requested change has been completely settled, including the Supremes saying, "not interested". This is an apple.
Now, I will admit that if the courts agree with those who say that Obama has exceeded the precedents of his office and his authority, it may change from an orange to a pear (Closer). If after that he says, "screw you guys, I'm sticking with it", well, then we'd have an apple.
Hope this helps :)
Quote:
she should become a Pastor. However, as an elected Clerk she has a duty to enforce the law, even if she disagrees with it. Nobody forced her to become the Clerk and the law puts the requirement to issue on marriage licenses to whomever holds the office. It is not like the law says Mrs. Davis has to sign the marriage licenses but no other Clerk is required to.
Yeah this. I respect her conscience even though I disagree with the conclusions to which it leads her. But if you find your conscience incompatible with what you're asked to do as part of a job you took and maintain voluntarily, you need to stop doing it. It is all well and good, in many cases admirable, that you conscientiously object to the duties of being a soldier, but you should not have signed on in the first place and if the duties or your conscience changed in the meantime such that you can no longer perform those duties America is not obligated to continue to cut you a check to do only those duties that comport with your moral compass.
I think most people are using their lack of "comfortability" with gay people as the driving force in how they interact with them. So I don't respect her conscience, as you said, because if she truly feels that this is religion driven, can we go down the list of things that the bible would find "objectionable" and how she treats those instances?
I'm not "comfortable" as such, with gay people--because I'm straight. Gay guys kiss? Yuck. But I get that. We are different in that way and I think it is the right thing to not treat them differently, regardless of how I feel about gay acts. Or gay people acting sexually.
We should remind ourselves that we live in a country where many people can't talk openly about straight sex, for pete's sake.
AP confirms - ( New Window )
I don't agree with her view, but I can respect that she has one and I think that she is welcome to her beliefs. But then she needs to quit.
shes wrong, AND shes an asshole - walter.
I wish the clerks who gave out gun licenses would have the same moral fortitude of this clerk in Kentucky.
Love and marriage... - ( New Window )
This is her problem, and if she has such a big problem with it, she should step down.
I am unfamiliar with Kentucky laws, but this would be easily solved if someone else in that office had the authority to issue the licenses. What happens when she goes on vacation and a heterosexual couple comes into the office and wants a license?
She's everyone's boss in that office. And fwiw, a couple can go to any city clerks office in the state to get a marriage license if they really want one. It doesn't have to come from the county you live in.
This is not what is happening. In the case of immigration, the laws are being ignored and that illegality is unenforced. Local municipalities are failing to comply with Federal Law and it is not being enforced by the Department of Justice. It doesnt' matter why the law is being ignored and unenforced for this argument, but it is fact that the law is being ignored, there is no discretion (prosecutorial priority). I disagree with the disregard for the law being demonstrated by the clerk and the disregard for the law by the Federal Government. Both are dead wrong for the same reason.
I hate my phone.
$80k in Kentucky? Wow.
If you take on this job, you have to perform the duties. Case closed.
If you take on this job, you have to perform the duties. Case closed.
Yes, she can be impeached.
But why are you insistent on taking over this thread? This is about a Kentucky clerk.
I suggest you start a new thread.
Quote:
The main difference is that Presidents, historically, have had lots of leeway to set "prosecutorial priority" and regulations and policy that further specifies what to do in interpreting the gaps in the law. Obama's immigration changes are, in theory, being made in agreement with that precedent.
This is not what is happening. In the case of immigration, the laws are being ignored and that illegality is unenforced. Local municipalities are failing to comply with Federal Law and it is not being enforced by the Department of Justice. It doesnt' matter why the law is being ignored and unenforced for this argument, but it is fact that the law is being ignored, there is no discretion (prosecutorial priority). I disagree with the disregard for the law being demonstrated by the clerk and the disregard for the law by the Federal Government. Both are dead wrong for the same reason.
Oh, I assumed you meant Obama's immigration stuff. My bad.
This is also an Orange. The key difference is that it's not the local jurisdictions job to enforce federal laws. They are making the determination that they don't want to be a part of enforcing that law and traditionally they have a lot of leeway to do that.
The Kentucky state legislature isn't going to impeach her.
She has two recourses, but of which make her a martyr, which one of the two political parties would LOVE for to happen.
1. The plantiffs can ask the federal judge to hold her in contempt of court, where she faces fines and/or jail time.
2. The Kentucky attorney general (a Democrat) could bring up misconduct charges, and she would go to jail.
Now if Davis ends up in jail, the Republicans would use her as the poster child for "Christian persecution," a woman who was jailed for exercising her religious beliefs. That would LOVE to point to this and scream, "See!? It's happening!"
I think the more likely tack is those outlets asking why the scofflaws regarding immigration are not held to a comparable standard. And while there are obvious difference regarding the law on these subjects, those arguments are likely to have some traction.
"I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions."
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."
"I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage.
Barack Obama 2008 - 2012
"I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions."
"I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage."
"I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage.
Barack Obama 2008 - 2012
What? A politician changes his public views to match polling? Shocking! :)
Unbelievable.
Who worships at the county clerk office?
As elected official. She has every right not to perform her required duties and in deep red Fox News Kentucky she is not getting impeached.
I am sure every gay couple in this county is meeting with lawyers to sue this county and will win easily. I hope this bigots enjoy when their taxes ahave to be raised to pay for the religious stance
It's reasoning like that which makes me proud to be an American.
And I don't see the argument about standing up for her beliefs - at their core, her belief is discriminatory and hateful - what is the honor is standing up for that?
The First Amendment protects the people from the government. The government cannot force the people to practice a particular religion, or any religion. As an elected official, Ms. Davis IS THE GOVERNMENT. She is choosing to impose her particular religious beliefs on the people. So, no, she is not exercising her First Amendment rights. She is actively violating and restricting others' First Amendment rights.
I have no compassion for her. She is a bigot and a massive hypocrite. She's been divorced four times.
Jesus on Divorce
Mark 10:10-12: When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery."
Jesus on Homosexuality
Not sure if it's a way of truncating different views or if there is an actual boogeyman but some of you guys have some obsession issues.
Not sure if it's a way of truncating different views or if there is an actual boogeyman but some of you guys have some obsession issues.
Probably about the same as the amount of Obama mentions in this thread.
Quote:
Has Fox News come out in support of this lady?
Not sure if it's a way of truncating different views or if there is an actual boogeyman but some of you guys have some obsession issues.
Probably about the same as the amount of Obama mentions in this thread.
The plaintiffs made a motion -- this wasnt the judge watching the news and calling her in on his own accord.
"Since defendant Davis continues to collect compensation from the commonwealth for duties she fails to perform, plaintiffs urge the court to impose financial penalties sufficiently serious and increasingly onerous to compel Davis' immediate compliance without further delay," Sharp wrote.
Bunning responded by scheduling a contempt hearing for 11 a.m. Thursday at the U.S. District Courthouse in Ashland.
Separately, Attorney General Jack Conway continued to review a request from Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins, who wants a special prosecutor appointed to decide if Davis is guilty of official misconduct for failing to perform her public duties. The charge, a misdemeanor, could bring up to a year in jail.
Link - ( New Window )
"Since defendant Davis continues to collect compensation from the commonwealth for duties she fails to perform, plaintiffs urge the court to impose financial penalties sufficiently serious and increasingly onerous to compel Davis' immediate compliance without further delay," Sharp wrote.
That's significant, except for the fact that someone will probably create a GoFundMe page and encourage morons to help pay her ongoing fines.
Is Kentuckys Infamous Anti-Gay Clerk Getting Taken for a Ride by Her Lawyers? - ( New Window )
Having a hard time seeing why it shouldn't be...
Having a hard time seeing why it shouldn't be...
I believe it is
Factually speaking, prosecutorial discretion is not the same thing as ignoring the law. Also, prosecutorial discretion is legal, and every Pres, Rep and Dem have used it commonly.
Quote:
how about some consistency?
I actually think that you have a point there as well. The law is the law.
I'm sorry but you are fundamentally wrong. That executives and law enforcement have prosecutorial discretion is settled law. No court has challenged that with regards to DOCA, etal. The few judges in opposition object to measures designed, in my opinion, to make it easier to track the illegal immigrant population. The registration related portion of the exec order is what is under disagreement. The courts are not saying prioritizing who gets deported is either illegal, or abdication of duty.
But on a relative scale, why the fuck do I hear so much about immigration? Ohhhhh, a law going unenforced? How about the millions of Americans who filed fraudulent loan applications, which led to economic ruin? And the lenders who conspired with them to do so? How come no one is calling for the mass incarceration of all those Americans? Or all of the speeders? How come "they broke the law, period, end of story" is only relevant for illegal aliens?
Is illegal immigration really the biggest problem facing America? Because it is plainly the #1 topic in the GOP primary right now.
I'd hope she'd simply be terminated for being a colossal screw-up.
A separate IPC paper from 2007 explains that this is not a function of well-behaved high-skilled immigrants from India and China offsetting misdeeds of Latin American newcomers. The data show that for every ethnic group without exception, incarceration rates among young men are lowest for immigrants, according to the report. This holds true especially for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population.
It also holds true in states with large populations of illegal residents. A 2008 report by the Public Policy Institute of California found that immigrants are underrepresented in the prison system. The incarceration rate for foreign-born adults is 297 per 100,000 in the population, compared [with] 813 per 100,000 for U.S.-born adults, the study concludes. The foreign-born, who make up roughly 35% of Californias adult population, constitute 17% of the state prison population.
High-profile incidents, like the recent arrest of a Mexican national in the horrific shooting death of a young woman in San Francisco, can give the impression that immigrants are more likely to commit violent crimes. But the alleged killer is no more representative of Mexican immigrants than Dylann Roof is representative of white people.
Link - ( New Window )
I wish irony wasn't as misused as begging the question.
You still havent explained why immigration is the issue that captivates the right. Because even to this Democrat who is anti-amnesty and pro-enforcement, it just seems like one big dog whistle to the "they're taking away our country" set.
But on a relative scale, why the fuck do I hear so much about immigration? Ohhhhh, a law going unenforced? How about the millions of Americans who filed fraudulent loan applications, which led to economic ruin? And the lenders who conspired with them to do so? How come no one is calling for the mass incarceration of all those Americans? Or all of the speeders? How come "they broke the law, period, end of story" is only relevant for illegal aliens?
Is illegal immigration really the biggest problem facing America? Because it is plainly the #1 topic in the GOP primary right now.
The two drug epidemics in America right now, meth and heroin, owe largely to illegal immigration. Cocaine too relies heavily on these networks. Again, that does not mean that all illegal immigrants are criminals, it is a function of the shadow world in which their legal status obligates them to live, but it is impossible to imagine these problems existing on the scale that they do without illegal immigration. So this isn't entirely a function of Donald Trump's dumbshit imagination. But he is unwilling or unable to articulate a nuanced understanding of the problem above and beyond demonizing the average immigrant.
Now I agree it is worthwhile to enforce the immigration laws. But I have all the reason in the world to be very suspicious of the people pushing this to the forefront of the national debate. It makes no sense.
Meh, whatever. There is no way of knowing that. I'm all for equal rights and same sex marriage- I'm also for folks standing up for what they believe in, regardless of how silly I may think their beliefs are.
If you want to challenge the supreme court's ruling, this is how you do it.
You can find folks standing up for what they believe even when it looks like they're fighting a losing battle throughout history- and sometimes although they might not get exactly what they want, they accomplish something close. Prohibition is a perfect example. Folks like to laugh about it nowadays and cite the repealing of prohibition as proof that it doesn't work. Well, it really did work to some extent. Folks nowadays don't and possibly can't quite understand how out of control alcohol consumption was prior to prohibition- it was more of a plague on society than obesity is now. Although eventually repealed prohibition was the main reason this country was able to pull itself out of its drunken stupor.
Not sure if that relates at all to this issue, but opposition needs to be heard no matter how silly of dumb you think it is. Giving up because you think you're on the losing side is a loser mentality.
Your post actually proved Bill's point about it not being apples and oranges.
The clerk needs to issue the licenses; the sanctuary cities need to enforce immigration laws (or insert your favorite law). While the laws being not enforced are different, they are both laws and both are required to be enforced.
Geezus the liberal mantra - false equivalency, false equivalency, false equivalency. Like parrots. If you don't agree with comparison its a false equivalency. Doesn't matter whether its a valid point or not - you don't like it scream false equivalency, like that has any validity. Catch phrases and cliches.
The point was you cannot selectively chose to enforce a laws you don't like.
Can you say that in English?
And since when does the Supreme Court not have the final say on the validity of a law.
After reading a bit, this 100%.
I typed my first post (like an idiot) before understanding her position and exactly what was going on. Couldn't have been more wrong.
Quote:
But if someone pays a fine on my behalf, is that a taxable event?
Having a hard time seeing why it shouldn't be...
I believe it is
Not sure I agree with this. Nor have i come across it in my practice as a CPA. The liability has come about in a grey area. When this eventually reaches the top court you will have your answer. Granted it's law they have to give the license by law but then you violate this persons constitutional right to exercise their freedom of religion. Can't they just have another clerk issue the license?
This has nothing at all to do with religion. Nothing about the civil institution of marriage has anything at all to do with religion or anyone's right to worship or to live by any set of values that religion proposes. Only bigotry can explain the need to insist that your own deliberate ignorance should dictate the rights of everyone else.
You put it much more eloquently than I. That's what I was trying to (poorly) say when I typed that it didn't matter if the belief comes from bigotry or religion- either way, it's her belief regardless.
Quote:
with religion or bigotry, and I don't think that really even matters- who cares if it is a religious or bigoted belief?
This has nothing at all to do with religion. Nothing about the civil institution of marriage has anything at all to do with religion or anyone's right to worship or to live by any set of values that religion proposes. Only bigotry can explain the need to insist that your own deliberate ignorance should dictate the rights of everyone else.
Oh, I agree with you.
Problem is, we aren't talking about what you and I believe- we're talking about what this woman claims to believe.
She's in charge and won't let them because her name will still be on the license even if she doesn't sign it and she'll have none of it.
Quote:
and some people cite the Supreme Court's authority and neither have such authority as originally conceived when the Constitution was drafted. The elected official meaning her was to have such authority over these matters based on the laws of that state. Oh we have come a long way.
Can you say that in English?
And since when does the Supreme Court not have the final say on the validity of a law.
Since always. Judicial review is unconstitutional. There is no defined consequence for disobeying the Supreme Court opinion on any matter.
Quote:
In comment 12448112 Mason said:
Quote:
and some people cite the Supreme Court's authority and neither have such authority as originally conceived when the Constitution was drafted. The elected official meaning her was to have such authority over these matters based on the laws of that state. Oh we have come a long way.
Can you say that in English?
And since when does the Supreme Court not have the final say on the validity of a law.
Since always. Judicial review is unconstitutional. There is no defined consequence for disobeying the Supreme Court opinion on any matter.
Live and learn, but don't really understand so I guess I haven't learned yet.
The supreme court has the power to uphold or overturn existing law. As such don't their opinions have consequences. In the specific case of this county clerk, she could be sent to jail, no?
- It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
- Women may not wear a lewd dress in public.
- It is illegal to howl at ladies within the city limits.
- It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses.
I've posted only a few, for brevity's sake, as Alabama has a lot of dumb law on the books.
So if we follow BamaBlue's earlier point to its logical conclusion, I'm sure he'd agree that Alabama should immediately cease enforcement of all laws, and defund all public programs. For, if we can't trust our electeds to enfore these simple laws, why bother collecting taxes, building roads, paying police?
Or maybe you find this line of thinking bizarre. Like the rest of us.
Quote:
In comment 12447308 Rob in CT/NYC said:
Quote:
But if someone pays a fine on my behalf, is that a taxable event?
Having a hard time seeing why it shouldn't be...
I believe it is
Not sure I agree with this. Nor have i come across it in my practice as a CPA. The liability has come about in a grey area. When this eventually reaches the top court you will have your answer. Granted it's law they have to give the license by law but then you violate this persons constitutional right to exercise their freedom of religion. Can't they just have another clerk issue the license?
I think we are talking across topics - I was inquiring if she would be liable for the taxes on any monies raised in some sort of online campaign, as other posters suggested.
And no one is violating her constitutional right - if a Muslim male were the clerk and refused entrance to any woman not wearing a burqa, how would that go over?
I'm pretty aligned with your view on religion as typed here.
The thing is, we live in a country of 350mil people- and the majority of them are believers. They have a voice and a say in the laws we make. You can't take that away.
That said- we also have a representative republic in place to ensure that the minority isn't denied rights because of the belief of the majority.
Point being- it goes both ways. You can't lecture people for trying to impose their biefs on other while you're simultaneously imposing your beliefs on them.
- It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
- Women may not wear a lewd dress in public.
- It is illegal to howl at ladies within the city limits.
- It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses.
I've posted only a few, for brevity's sake, as Alabama has a lot of dumb law on the books.
So if we follow BamaBlue's earlier point to its logical conclusion, I'm sure he'd agree that Alabama should immediately cease enforcement of all laws, and defund all public programs. For, if we can't trust our electeds to enfore these simple laws, why bother collecting taxes, building roads, paying police?
Or maybe you find this line of thinking bizarre. Like the rest of us.
Link - ( New Window )
when one couple responded, "What consequences - there are no consequences" she said "On Judgment Day".
That alone should be means for termination as she not only is not fulfilling her duties, she is telling others what their fate is going to be based on her religious interpretation.
I'd still like to know what religious freedom of her's has been infringed on.
Quote:
The idea of a god that is actually paying attention to us has been a cute one for a long time, but it's probably time for everyone to grow up already. At minimum at least stop trying to use mythology and superstition as an excuse to tell people what to do.
I'm pretty aligned with your view on religion as typed here.
The thing is, we live in a country of 350mil people- and the majority of them are believers. They have a voice and a say in the laws we make. You can't take that away.
That said- we also have a representative republic in place to ensure that the minority isn't denied rights because of the belief of the majority.
Point being- it goes both ways. You can't lecture people for trying to impose their biefs on other while you're simultaneously imposing your beliefs on them.
I get that, but I'm not imposing my beliefs on anyone. If someone doesn't believe in gay marriage or abortion or whatever, fine... Don't do those things. Just don't tell others that they can't.
Her job is, in part, to issue government documents.
This really is apples and oranges.
She, as a government representative, does not have the right to impose her religious beliefs onto other citizens while acting in accordance with her official capacity.
This is not about her choice to enforce a law, it's about her choice to not follow a law. It's up to another facet of government to decide whether or not to hold her accountable.
The main difference is, of all of the examples presented for comparison in this thread, not one of them involve the denial of civil rights by the government upon a citizen.
It actually should have the opposite effect, but it doesn't.
That's a side effect of religious organizations who promote prosthelytization. While most claim it is done in the name of spreading the "Good News" the real reason it is done is to expand the reach and coffers of the organization.
So much fraud is done in the name of religion. Organizationally, morally and mentally.
Quote:
Here are some laws that aren't actively enforced in the great state of Alabama (for arguments sake):
- It is illegal to sell peanuts in Lee County after sundown on Wednesday.
- Women may not wear a lewd dress in public.
- It is illegal to howl at ladies within the city limits.
- It is considered an offense to open an umbrella on a street, for fear of spooking horses.
I've posted only a few, for brevity's sake, as Alabama has a lot of dumb law on the books.
So if we follow BamaBlue's earlier point to its logical conclusion, I'm sure he'd agree that Alabama should immediately cease enforcement of all laws, and defund all public programs. For, if we can't trust our electeds to enfore these simple laws, why bother collecting taxes, building roads, paying police?
Or maybe you find this line of thinking bizarre. Like the rest of us.
M.O. then couldn't you make the case that this Kentucky lady is no different in this regard?
No. Because in this case, she alone has taken it upon herself to deny citizens what most everyone else can do based only on her warped interpretation of doctrine.
If that isn't a problem for you, then I'm afraid we aren't going to see eye to eye on this.
But to conflate this with national immigration policy is intellectually dishonest.
Quote:
No reason that this one needed to be taken over with some awful false equivalency.
And the point you are selectively ignoring is the President is doing no such thing. You can't strip him of authorities that have been legally used by all Presidents before him, and then, what, somehow magically expect the authority to come back when you get a president you like....
Geezus the liberal mantra - false equivalency, false equivalency, false equivalency. Like parrots. If you don't agree with comparison its a false equivalency. Doesn't matter whether its a valid point or not - you don't like it scream false equivalency, like that has any validity. Catch phrases and cliches.
The point was you cannot selectively chose to enforce a laws you don't like.
she is okay with adultery Link - ( New Window )
Not that I'm inclined to stand up for the woman, but she appears to be a relatively recent convert. Hence her past misdeeds aren't necessarily useful in judging her Christianity.
I think their axiom is "I did all the shit I wanted and now am forgiven, so my goal in life is to tell everyone else in the world how to act. And I'm going to be as sanctimonious as possible in doing it!"
Exactly
She gave birth to twins five months after she divorced her first husband. The father of those twins was her third husband, according to the records.
Her second husband adopted the twins, the news magazine said.
It's like Jerry Springer.
Kim Davis was tearful while testifying of her religious faith at contempt hearing but stoic as marshal led her to jail.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Judge said fine for Kim Davis would not work b/c others apparently raising money to pay fines for her. ^
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Judge orders Clerk Kim Davis to jail until she complies with marriage license order. Led from courtroom by marshals.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
BREAKING: Judge sends Rowan Clerk #KimDavis to jail until she agrees to comply with his order to issue marriage licenses.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Kim Davis is in custody until she signs marriage licenses. Crowd outside erupts in applause
Judge Bunning told Kim Davis he has his own religious beliefs as Catholic, but public officials must respect the law.
And I'm glad that the judge saw that fining her would be pointless.
Kim Davis' deputy clerks get half-hour to decide if they will obey court order or possibly join boss in jail. Meeting w/ lawyers.
He's a clown.
Donald Trump said: "She's a nice lady but a really terrible martyr. Look at her there denying the licenses. Really low energy. Put me in charge and I'll show how to martyr. It will be great."
Kim Davis said 5 of her 6 deputy clerks can issue marriage licenses, too. They're on the spot now.
Judge Bunning said he does not lightly send Rowan Co clerk to jail. But "in this country, we live in a society of laws."
"Our system of justice requires citizens - and significantly, elected officials - to follow the rules of the courts," Judge Bunning says.
Judge Bunning said he does not lightly send Rowan Co clerk to jail. But "in this country, we live in a society of laws."
She has previously stated that even if she didn't personally issue or sign the license that her name would still be on it and she couldn't abide by that. She has really forced the issue.
+1. You were elected to do your job - so either do it, or step down and let someone else...
Quote:
a "true hero"
He's a clown.
Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Taken Into Custody - ( New Window )
Didn't read much of the current thread, didya?
Canonizing bigotry.
I still love how he stood by the Duggars after the child-molestation story came out but then dropped them altogether when he realized that they would bring his image down. And this from a family that espoused "family value" according to their views when their son was an adulterous child molester and they were complicit in keeping it hush hush.
Well Chris Christie and Donald Trump just promised to endorse Huck should he win the nomination, and I suspect all the other candidates will fall in line too.
Quote:
and rightly so. But why bother? He's a huckster and an opportunists...nothing more.
Well Chris Christie and Donald Trump just promised to endorse Huck should he win the nomination, and I suspect all the other candidates will fall in line too.
But he won't, so...
Quote:
and rightly so. But why bother? He's a huckster and an opportunists...nothing more.
Well Chris Christie and Donald Trump just promised to endorse Huck should he win the nomination, and I suspect all the other candidates will fall in line too.
So you have two other opportunists promising to endorse this clown...how does that make what I posted wrong?
He's Al Sharpton, an opportunist.
Five deputy clerks willing to follow the law seems adequate, Judge Bunning said. He won't hold Kim Davis' son, Nathan, in contempt.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Faced w/ contempt & jail, 5 of Kim Davis' 6 deputy clerks tell judge they would be OK issuing marriage licenses to all. Her son says no.
One way or another, Judge Bunning says, couples need to be able to walk into Rowan Co clerk office Friday morning and get license.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Judge will hold new hearing at 3:30 to decide if her deputies agreeing to give licenses over her objections makes jailing her unneeded.
Kim Davis will return to courtroom at 3:30 & tell judge if she's willing to let her deputies obey law over her objections. If not, jail.
Kim Davis will return to courtroom at 3:30 & tell judge if she's willing to let her deputies obey law over her objections. If not, jail.
Well...I guess we'll see just how strong her conviction is. Or if she'll save herself from being thrown in jail and save face by allowing her deputies to carry out the duties.
She's more than a clerk...
she's a goddamn hero.
Kim Davis will return to courtroom at 3:30 & tell judge if she's willing to let her deputies obey law over her objections. If not, jail.
Well...I guess we'll see just how strong her conviction is. Or if she'll save herself from being thrown in jail and save face by allowing her deputies to carry out the duties.
Her name will still be on the license and she said that was the reson she wouldn't allow her clerks to issue them. Now? We'll see.
Link - ( New Window )
The Tennessee Court of Appeals has noted that Obergefell v. Hodges, affected what is, and must be recognized as, a lawful marriage in the State of Tennessee. This leaves a mere trial level Tennessee state court judge in a bit of a quandary.
...
With the U.S. Supreme Court having defined what must be recognized as a marriage, it would appear that Tennessees judiciary must now await the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to what is not a marriage, or better stated, when a marriage is no longer a marriage.
and check out the second graf here, lol. Dude had a tantrum.
Link - ( New Window )
Kim Davis tells judge she'd rather stay in jail than cooperate with her deputies giving marriage licenses. OK, jail it is, judge says.
Davis did not come back to the courtroom as requested. She spoke through her attorneys. Remains in custody indefinitely.
It is the signature of the person with power -- judge, clerk, or President -- that makes the deed official. If the deputy signs a marriage license over the objection of the elected clerk, is the marriage legal?
Quote:
and rightly so. But why bother? He's a huckster and an opportunists...nothing more.
Well Chris Christie and Donald Trump just promised to endorse Huck should he win the nomination, and I suspect all the other candidates will fall in line too.
Idiot. What, they signed a no third party run agreement and that is what you equate.. Huckabee has a snowballs' chance in hell of getting nominated to dog catcher. Talk about talking out your ass.
Yeah, and he ended up denying these folks divorce because they hadn't proved their relationship wasn't salvageable. He's amazing. Those poor folks.
It is the signature of the person with power -- judge, clerk, or President -- that makes the deed official. If the deputy signs a marriage license over the objection of the elected clerk, is the marriage legal?
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Kim Davis said 5 of her 6 deputy clerks can issue marriage licenses, too.
Remember, she's stopped marriage licenses from being issued. Period. To anyone. Question is, can she stop her office from serving the taxpayers?
Even after admitting she can't/won't do her job, she still won't lose it, it seems.
Judge Bunning warns Rowan Co deputy clerks their office better open Friday and comply. Couples plan to be there for licenses.
Hearing concluded. Clerk in custody. Deputies to issue licenses tomorrow, though they expressed reluctance but for contempt threat.
Cty atty on Davis: "A foolish mission aided by out of state charlatan lawyers trying to raise money for their 'religious liberty' mission."
Hearing concluded. Clerk in custody. Deputies to issue licenses tomorrow, though they expressed reluctance but for contempt threat.
Good. Sounds like the judge made his determination on this point pretty clear.
It is the signature of the person with power -- judge, clerk, or President -- that makes the deed official. If the deputy signs a marriage license over the objection of the elected clerk, is the marriage legal?
I'm not a lawyer but this seems to answer your question. Does it?
********************************************************
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure TITLE VIII. PROVISIONAL AND FINAL REMEDIES
Rule 70. Enforcing a Judgment for a Specific Act
(a) Party's Failure to Act; Ordering Another to Act. If a judgment requires a party to convey land, to deliver a deed or other document, or to perform any other specific act and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may order the act to be doneat the disobedient party's expenseby another person appointed by the court. When done, the act has the same effect as if done by the party.
(b) Vesting Title. If the real or personal property is within the district, the courtinstead of ordering a conveyancemay enter a judgment divesting any party's title and vesting it in others. That judgment has the effect of a legally executed conveyance.
(c) Obtaining a Writ of Attachment or Sequestration. On application by a party entitled to performance of an act, the clerk must issue a writ of attachment or sequestration against the disobedient party's property to compel obedience.
(d) Obtaining a Writ of Execution or Assistance. On application by a party who obtains a judgment or order for possession, the clerk must issue a writ of execution or assistance.
(e) Holding in Contempt. The court may also hold the disobedient party in contempt.
Link - ( New Window )
Link?
Per our motion, the injunction against the clerk compels licenses to be issued to all couples, not just our clients.
So if her office is going to issue licenses and she isnt stopping that, why does she need to be in jail? I assume the original ruling was that these people are entitled to get a marriage license in that county. If they're getting that, shouldnt Davis be let go?
So if her office is going to issue licenses and she isnt stopping that, why does she need to be in jail? I assume the original ruling was that these people are entitled to get a marriage license in that county. If they're getting that, shouldnt Davis be let go?
She wouldn't agree not to interfere, per the Chicago Tribune ...
The judge later sought a resolution to keep Davis out of jail after all. He overruled an objection from her lawyer, who argued that her six deputy clerks cannot act against her authority. And he called each one before him to declare whether they intend to follow the law. All but the clerk's son, Nathan Davis, promised to comply.
The judge said Nathan Davis' position wouldn't matter, and that his mother could go free as long as she promised not to interfere with issuing of marriage licenses to all couples. But Kim Davis rejected the offer, her attorneys later said.
Link - ( New Window )
A Statement of Faith of the Apostolic Christian Church
[...]2.1 Christian Integrity
We believe that it is a major Christian obligation to be strictly truthful and transparent in life and doctrine, with no secrecy or hypocrisy.98 Although the swearing of oaths was permitted in Old Testament times, it is forbidden by Christ.99 Christians are obligated to speak the truth because they are always in the presence of God.100
Therefore we simply affirm the truth in legal transactions. Our membership is not to be in lodges and secret societies which require the use of oaths and foster the formation of intimate alliances with unbelievers.101 Instead, we seek to promote fellowship and brotherhood in the church.102
**************************************************
12 But above all, my brethren, n do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your "Yes" be "Yes," and your "No," "No," lest you fall into 9 judgment.
***********************************
Matthew 5:33-37
OATHS
33 "Again you have heard that m it was said to those of 1 old, n 'You shall not swear falsely, but o shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' 34 "But I say to you, p do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is q God's throne; 35 "nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of r the great King. 36 "Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 s "But let 2 your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No.' For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.
Link - ( New Window )
The Kentucky county clerk, jailed for failing to follow a judges orders to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, wants her name removed from the marriage certificates, her attorney Matthew Staver told ABC News.
She has a very strong conscience and shes just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well, Staver said. That simple remedy has simply been ignored by the court and by the governor and thats what should have been done.
Link - ( New Window )
Going to the chapel: Will Smith & James Yates get a marriage license in Rowan Co from deputy clerk Brian Mason.
Kim Davis is "in good spirits" in jail, ready to stay for however long it takes to defend her beliefs, husband Joe Davis says.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Kim Davis' husband tells reporters in Morehead that Judge Bunning is a coward & a bully.
Smith & Yates, first couple to get Rowan Co marriage license since Supreme Court decision, says they have to set the date now.
The Kentucky county clerk, jailed for failing to follow a judges orders to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, wants her name removed from the marriage certificates, her attorney Matthew Staver told ABC News.
She has a very strong conscience and shes just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well, Staver said. That simple remedy has simply been ignored by the court and by the governor and thats what should have been done. Link - ( New Window )
Well, it has to be signed by someone. I'm guessing the law says it has to be the person who holds her job.
Kim Davis is "in good spirits" in jail, ready to stay for however long it takes to defend her beliefs, husband Joe Davis says.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
Kim Davis' husband tells reporters in Morehead that Judge Bunning is a coward & a bully.
He'll be ex-husband number 4 any day now...
actually -- individuals are allowed to give gifts to another individual up to the amount set by IRS and State regs that are excluded from taxation -- so by extension multiple individuals can give gifts and in aggregate exceed the minimum --
for instance a couple can each give their child and the childs husband (in aggregate 4X the maximum gift allowable) - if the allowable gift exclusion is $10,000 -- then the husband can give the child and their spouse each $10,000 and the wife can give the child and their spouse each $10,000 -- resulting in a $40,000 gift under the exclusion
Quote:
The judge said jail was the only option as fines were very likely going to be paid by third parties - is that a taxable event for this woman? Is it because the individual donations don't exceed the $14,000 mark, even though they may in aggregate?
actually -- individuals are allowed to give gifts to another individual up to the amount set by IRS and State regs that are excluded from taxation -- so by extension multiple individuals can give gifts and in aggregate exceed the minimum --
for instance a couple can each give their child and the childs husband (in aggregate 4X the maximum gift allowable) - if the allowable gift exclusion is $10,000 -- then the husband can give the child and their spouse each $10,000 and the wife can give the child and their spouse each $10,000 -- resulting in a $40,000 gift under the exclusion
Umm....There is no limit to what you can give somebody....
Either Liz has turned Dick into a social liberal, or Halliburton is moving in on the gay marriage market.
Quote:
In comment 12451429 Rob in CT/NYC said:
Quote:
The judge said jail was the only option as fines were very likely going to be paid by third parties - is that a taxable event for this woman? Is it because the individual donations don't exceed the $14,000 mark, even though they may in aggregate?
actually -- individuals are allowed to give gifts to another individual up to the amount set by IRS and State regs that are excluded from taxation -- so by extension multiple individuals can give gifts and in aggregate exceed the minimum --
for instance a couple can each give their child and the childs husband (in aggregate 4X the maximum gift allowable) - if the allowable gift exclusion is $10,000 -- then the husband can give the child and their spouse each $10,000 and the wife can give the child and their spouse each $10,000 -- resulting in a $40,000 gift under the exclusion
Umm....There is no limit to what you can give somebody....
Yes -- it's true -- there's no limit to the amount you can give -- however -- gifts are all subject to gift tax -- however there are maximum amounts established that fall under an exclusion to paying gift tax
Quote:
In comment 12453035 gidiefor said:
Quote:
In comment 12451429 Rob in CT/NYC said:
Quote:
The judge said jail was the only option as fines were very likely going to be paid by third parties - is that a taxable event for this woman? Is it because the individual donations don't exceed the $14,000 mark, even though they may in aggregate?
actually -- individuals are allowed to give gifts to another individual up to the amount set by IRS and State regs that are excluded from taxation -- so by extension multiple individuals can give gifts and in aggregate exceed the minimum --
for instance a couple can each give their child and the childs husband (in aggregate 4X the maximum gift allowable) - if the allowable gift exclusion is $10,000 -- then the husband can give the child and their spouse each $10,000 and the wife can give the child and their spouse each $10,000 -- resulting in a $40,000 gift under the exclusion
Umm....There is no limit to what you can give somebody....
Yes -- it's true -- there's no limit to the amount you can give -- however -- gifts are all subject to gift tax -- however there are maximum amounts established that fall under an exclusion to paying gift tax
For clarification, and I actually Googled Kentucky Estate and Gift Taxes:
* The federal annual exemption amount is $14,000 per donee. So the maximum contained in giddie's post should actually be $56,000 between couples.
* Gifts above that amount count against a lifetime exemption amount of roughly $5.4 million per person. Above that they would be subject to gift tax.
* Kentucky has no gift tax but does have an inheritance tax, but it only applies to gifts made within 3 years of the donors death.
The Kentucky county clerk, jailed for failing to follow a judges orders to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, wants her name removed from the marriage certificates, her attorney Matthew Staver told ABC News.
She has a very strong conscience and shes just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well, Staver said. That simple remedy has simply been ignored by the court and by the governor and thats what should have been done. Link - ( New Window )
Well, it has to be signed by someone. I'm guessing the law says it has to be the person who holds her job.
No, the County Clerk doesn't have to sign the license. One of the deputy clerks can sign. Her name, however, appears on the license showing where it was issued. That is what she wants to remove. Here's a copy of her marriage license from 2009. Her name is on licenses now issued by her office where her 2009 license shows "Jean W. Bailey", her predecessor ...
There's no tax deduction for gifts.
Yes...and that's definitely something they should be making fun of him (Joe Davis) about, especially since he's married her twice, right? Didn't learn from his first mistake.
The issue comes down to why are people insulting hillbillies? They didn't do anything wrong to be put in the same group as this jackass.
Yes...and that's definitely something they should be making fun of him (Joe Davis) about, especially since he's married her twice, right? Didn't learn from his first mistake.
The issue comes down to why are people insulting hillbillies? They didn't do anything wrong to be put in the same group as this jackass.
Well, ole Joe made the public claim himself ...
Im an old redneck hillbilly, thats all Ive got to say. Dont come knocking on my door.
Link - ( New Window )
But his mothers name is Vondal Bailey. And thats OK too, except that happens to be Kim Davis maiden name. Her father was Darold Bailey.
So in a small Kentucky town, on his fourth marriage, he marries someone with a common surname?
Does her religion condone this?
Quote:
Because agreeing with anything Dick Chaney agrees on terrifies me, I think I might switch to pro-Kim Davis.
Either Liz has turned Dick into a social liberal, or Halliburton is moving in on the gay marriage market.
My guess:
"Mary Claire Cheney (born March 14, 1969) is the second daughter of Dick Cheney, the former Vice President of the United States, and his wife, Lynne Cheney. She is politically conservative and is involved with a number of political action groups.[1]
She is openly lesbian, has voiced support for same-sex marriage, and has been credited with encouraging her father to support same-sex marriage.[2]"
But his mothers name is Vondal Bailey. And thats OK too, except that happens to be Kim Davis maiden name. Her father was Darold Bailey.
So in a small Kentucky town, on his fourth marriage, he marries someone with a common surname?
Surprisingly, in Kentucky it's illegal for 1st or 2nd cousins to marry, if that's where you're going.
Everybody...
Quote:
His dad's name is Virgil. Of course thats OK, but just not a name we chose very often....
But his mothers name is Vondal Bailey. And thats OK too, except that happens to be Kim Davis maiden name. Her father was Darold Bailey.
So in a small Kentucky town, on his fourth marriage, he marries someone with a common surname?
Surprisingly, in Kentucky it's illegal for 1st or 2nd cousins to marry, if that's where you're going.
Well the law doesn't seem to matter to Kentuckians, so we're good...
Quote:
In comment 12453727 WideRight said:
Quote:
His dad's name is Virgil. Of course thats OK, but just not a name we chose very often....
But his mothers name is Vondal Bailey. And thats OK too, except that happens to be Kim Davis maiden name. Her father was Darold Bailey.
So in a small Kentucky town, on his fourth marriage, he marries someone with a common surname?
Surprisingly, in Kentucky it's illegal for 1st or 2nd cousins to marry, if that's where you're going.
Well the law doesn't seem to matter to Kentuckians, so we're good...
Quote:
In comment 12452843 sphinx said:Quote:Kim Davis thinks she has a solution to her problem.
The Kentucky county clerk, jailed for failing to follow a judges orders to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, wants her name removed from the marriage certificates, her attorney Matthew Staver told ABC News.
She has a very strong conscience and shes just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well, Staver said. That simple remedy has simply been ignored by the court and by the governor and thats what should have been done. Link - ( New Window )
Well, it has to be signed by someone. I'm guessing the law says it has to be the person who holds her job.
No, the County Clerk doesn't have to sign the license. One of the deputy clerks can sign. Her name, however, appears on the license showing where it was issued. That is what she wants to remove. Here's a copy of her marriage license from 2009. Her name is on licenses now issued by her office where her 2009 license shows "Jean W. Bailey", her predecessor ...
Ummmm, it is common for other states to list "relationship to other parties" on their wedding licences???? I don't recall seeing that on my CA wedding licence...
Melanie Kendall @MelanieKendall
Here's a picture of April Miller and Karen Roberts' marriage license - Kim Davis' name is not on it
On Kim Davis' license posted earlier, it reads ... in the office of Jean W. Bailey Rowan County Clerk. On the license issued to Miller and Roberts this morning it just seems to say, in the office of Rowan County Clerk. Melanie Kendall (an ABC36News reporter), who posted the above tweet and pic confirms Kim Davis' name does not appear on it, which should put Davis in good standing with her god according to her lawyer and may get her out of the hoosegow.
This morning her lawyer said, She has a very strong conscience and shes just asking for a simple remedy, and that is, remove her name from the certificate and all will be well,.
Moving on to Kentucky law ... Kentucky Revised Statutes reads ...
******************************************
402.110 Marriage license to be uniform and completely filled out.
The form of marriage license prescribed in KRS 402.100 shall be uniform throughout this state ... LINK
*******************************************
Now moving to aforementioned KRS 402.100, it says ...
******************************************
402.100 Marriage license -- Marriage certificate -- Confidentiality of Social Security numbers.
Each county clerk shall use the form prescribed by the Department for Libraries and Archives when issuing a marriage license. This form shall provide for the entering of all of the information required in this section, and may also provide for the entering of additional information prescribed by the Department for Libraries and Archives. The
form shall consist of:
(1) A marriage license which provides for the entering of:
(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;
(b) Vital information for each party, including the full name, date of birth, place of birth, race, condition (single, widowed, or divorced), number of previous
marriages, occupation, current residence, relationship to the other party, and full names of parents; and
(c) The date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license.
LINK
************************************
I'm in no way trained in the legal profession but I see NO requirement in the statutes for her name to on the license. A license issued this morning omitted her name (see previous post). It seems that's all she had to do from the getgo, leave her name off the license. Again, I'm getting the sense this whole thing has been orchestrated bullshit. If I'm missing some point or misinterpreted a point, I'm open for correction.
.
What the opponents of marriage equality needed, what Bryan Fischer and Tony Perkins and all the desperate homophobes of the Liberty Counsel had to have to stay in business for another year, was a martyr. (They almost had it with those "no wedding pizza for gays" people, but then that GoFundMe page came along and made them rich.) They needed a timid, God-fearing person to be hauled off to prison.
They got that today.
Kim Davis, because of her deeply-held belief in a religion to which she converted four years ago (her whole thing makes so much more sense when you think about how fresh she is to Christianity, doesn't it? Hers is the zeal of the brand-new convert. It's like she's six months into Crossfit) refused to issue marriage licenses out of her office so that she would never endorse a same-sex union with her signature, and now she's going to jail. As Mark Joseph Stern points out in Slate, good lawyers lawyers who are working for the good of their clients, not lawyers who are trying to stay relevant in a world that has outgrown themtend to do what they can to keep their clients out of jail. The Liberty Counsel, who counsels for the liberty to oppress gay people and pretty much nothing else, should be out of business in 2015. When we get that picture of Kim Davis in handcuffs, they'll have the image they need to stay afloat until 2025.
Link - ( New Window )
This remains an unfortunate situation to me.
This remains an unfortunate situation to me.
Yes, she's just a bigot. She's not someone lacking the relevant information to make a better choice. She knows all the same things about homosexuality that progressive people know. She's free to discard that knowledge in favor of what her magic book tells her, but there is now a social price to be paid for that.
Quote:
whether gays should have the right to marry, I probably would have said no. Now if someone hasnt moved on that issue as quickly as the rest of us have, she's just a bigot? Has she even said anything bad about gays or gay marriage beyond the fact that her religion doesnt allow it so she cant actively participate in it (honest question)?
This remains an unfortunate situation to me.
Yes, she's just a bigot. She's not someone lacking the relevant information to make a better choice. She knows all the same things about homosexuality that progressive people know. She's free to discard that knowledge in favor of what her magic book tells her, but there is now a social price to be paid for that.
Or his reinforcement...that guy was freaking awesome.
Quote:
old pal Spock when we need him?
Or his reinforcement...that guy was freaking awesome.
No, her indignation and religious fervor stems only from whether two people of the same sex want to marry each other.
Quote:
In comment 12454139 Big Al said:
Quote:
old pal Spock when we need him?
Or his reinforcement...that guy was freaking awesome.
Eunich?
Haha...I think it was Enoch##### or something.
Quote:
In comment 12454066 Deej said:
Quote:
whether gays should have the right to marry, I probably would have said no. Now if someone hasnt moved on that issue as quickly as the rest of us have, she's just a bigot? Has she even said anything bad about gays or gay marriage beyond the fact that her religion doesnt allow it so she cant actively participate in it (honest question)?
This remains an unfortunate situation to me.
Yes, she's just a bigot. She's not someone lacking the relevant information to make a better choice. She knows all the same things about homosexuality that progressive people know. She's free to discard that knowledge in favor of what her magic book tells her, but there is now a social price to be paid for that.
Not sure why you use the unnecessary term "magic book" to insult all believers, most of who understand the difference between having a belief, and using your belief as a government worker to violstr their rights. I find you to be a bigot also.
That's perfectly fine. But you might take a moment to examine the difference between you and I. You try to insult me by calling me a bigot. I dismiss that as silly - because "bigot" is a word with a fairly firm objective meaning, and one that I don't come close to meeting.
Before that, I tried to insult Kim Davis by saying she took instruction from a magic book. In response, you not only took offense on her behalf, but your own behalf, and on behalf of "all believers." That's a lot of offense being taken. Maybe you want to ask yourself why? I'm not a bigot, and being called one doesn't bother me. If the Bible is not essentially a magic book, why concern yourself with someone who calls it one?
And for the record, I've always been for making gay marriage legal. A license is not some holy creed from God. It's a legal contract and follows secular law. If you want 'holy matrimony' you have to go through all the BS that you need to get married in a church. I would not support forcing churches to marry gays or anyone they don't want to. But who really gives a crap who other people marry? It's absurd.
From the Apostolic Christian Church's Statement of Faith ...
Governmental authority is respected and obeyed. Members serve in a non-combatant status in the military. Oaths are not taken, but truth is affirmed.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 12454076 BlackLight said:
Quote:
In comment 12454066 Deej said:
Quote:
whether gays should have the right to marry, I probably would have said no. Now if someone hasnt moved on that issue as quickly as the rest of us have, she's just a bigot? Has she even said anything bad about gays or gay marriage beyond the fact that her religion doesnt allow it so she cant actively participate in it (honest question)?
This remains an unfortunate situation to me.
Yes, she's just a bigot. She's not someone lacking the relevant information to make a better choice. She knows all the same things about homosexuality that progressive people know. She's free to discard that knowledge in favor of what her magic book tells her, but there is now a social price to be paid for that.
Not sure why you use the unnecessary term "magic book" to insult all believers, most of who understand the difference between having a belief, and using your belief as a government worker to violstr their rights. I find you to be a bigot also.
That's perfectly fine. But you might take a moment to examine the difference between you and I. You try to insult me by calling me a bigot. I dismiss that as silly - because "bigot" is a word with a fairly firm objective meaning, and one that I don't come close to meeting.
Before that, I tried to insult Kim Davis by saying she took instruction from a magic book. In response, you not only took offense on her behalf, but your own behalf, and on behalf of "all believers." That's a lot of offense being taken. Maybe you want to ask yourself why? I'm not a bigot, and being called one doesn't bother me. If the Bible is not essentially a magic book, why concern yourself with someone who calls it one?
Davis never expected to find herself behind bars in an orange jumpsuit, Staver said, but she "slept well last night. She slept with a very good conscience."
Outside the Rowan County courthouse Friday, Davis' husband, Joe, said he spoke to his wife by telephone late Thursday, and he reported "she's in good spirits."
"She will stay in there for however long it takes, (I hope)" Joe Davis said. "She will not back down. She'll never resign (I hope). Nope."
Disclaimer: Parens added by me doing a little mind reading.
Her decision to fight would seem to support the belief that there were other motivations, her own or others', driving the clown car here.
Her decision to fight would seem to support the belief that there were other motivations, her own or others', driving the clown car here.
CNN files motion asking Judge Bunning for right to do jailhouse interview with Rowan Co Clerk Kim Davis, says Davis is willing.
CNN files motion asking Judge Bunning for right to do jailhouse interview with Rowan Co Clerk Kim Davis, says Davis is willing.
Of course she is willing.
For however long what takes? SCOTUS to change its mind? The Rapture?
SwirlingEddie : 9/5/2015 10:19 am : link : reply
and simply resign her position?
You get to play martyr if you're defiant and jailed. Not so much if you resign.
I was up early and watched the sun rise this morning, kind of the same thing?
That is a startling turn of events...
heraldleader @heraldleader
Huckabee to join rally for clerk opposed to gay marriage.
Bluegrass Politics @BGPolitics
GOP presidential hopeful Cruz to visit jailed Kentucky clerk
A meetup with Al Sharpton, maybe?
Rowan Co couples file their new marriage licenses in court at judge's request. Kim Davis' name removed from form; signed by deputies.
Link - ( New Window )
As Kim Davis leaves jail, she is asked if she'll let deputies issue marriage licenses. "She will not violate her conscious," lawyer says
Gov. Beshear: Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis' religious freedoms never were trampled upon, she failed to do her legal duties as a clerk.
She's already broken up three marriages
As Kim Davis leaves jail, she is asked if she'll let deputies issue marriage licenses. "She will not violate her conscious," lawyer says
Good. I hope she interferes, and ends up right back in jail. C*nt...
Sam Youngman @samyoungman
Huckabee volunteers to go to jail instead of Kim Davis
He will run for President for the next 20 years.
Sam Youngman @samyoungman
Huckabee volunteers to go to jail instead of Kim Davis
Can the judge just make it a two-fer?
Sam Youngman @samyoungman
Huckabee volunteers to go to jail instead of Kim Davis
Wow, who would have though Huckabee would be in jail before Hillary.
Kim Davis took an oath before God to obey ALL LAWS! So she must:
1 Obey the law!
2 Put away adultery!
3 PROTEST SIN!
Westboro Baptist
@WBCSaysRepent Westboro Baptist retweeted Raw Story
Get this straight: you can NOT repent of a sin you actively live. Kim must leave that man who's not her husband.
Westboro Baptist @WBCSaysRepent
Stay tuned for WBC video news w words about #KimDavis. Famous for adultery & govt tyranny: grievous sins against God.