Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[barry1960]

Licenses to marry are like being forced to get a license for a dog. They make no sense.

Well marriage doesn't make sense either. Why do people feel the need to marry? Often people see it as security, false security. Seeing as 40% of first marriages end in divorce, a marriage doesn't offer anything. Doesn't stop cheating, doesn't stop problems, often causes problems.

I've been in relationships where the person suddenly gets complacent and then it goes downhill from there.

I've known someone whose parents never got married and they're still together 30 years later.

Marriage doesn't do anything except for give legal guarantees, like with inheritance and tax breaks and so on.

There was a gay couple, one guy adopted the other one so they could get most of this legal stuff. Then they had to unadopt so they could get married now that gay marriage is legal. It wasn't the marriage that was important, it was the being together.

The license is merely a way of giving many people what they seek from marriage. The feeling of security, the ritual, the telling everyone how much they love each other, the looking like a princess, the same surname (in various Western cultures) and so on.

It is legal agreement and licenses are issued by the state. A person's religion has nothing to do with it.

The clerk should have followed the law. She is not being asked to perform the marriage ceremony in her church.

Her job required her to issue the license without prejudice under the law of the US.

Now she will spend an undetermined time in jail, and possibly her son will soon be there as well.

 

[Bonzi]

Given your posting history, you're in no position to refer to anything as 'stupid.'

Yeah? I don't give a rat's ass. How's that? Now go bother someone else, tool. You're a nothing

Gee, maybe if you learned to drop your anger.......

I think that once one has the upper hand, how they handle it is an indication of their true character.

So please, continue trying to crush these God fearing Christians like a jack-booted thug.

Not letting christians dictate how to enforce or not enforce our nation's laws is fighting christian sharia. You support christian sharia.....oh, and in case you forgot the definition....it is wanting to run our country thru YOUR interpretation of what YOUR god wants, not the U.S. Constitution.

Like I said.....Obama picks and chooses which laws he wants to obey or enforce.....so we can't blame others for doing the same exact thing.

You want everyone to obey the letter of the law......except when you think the law is bullshit.

So deal with it.

 

[Bonzi]

Talked to hubby about this last night, he said she needs to stop, she's giving Christians a bad name....

 

[Bonzi]

He or she whatever the case may be is a liar Bonzi. Sodomy is not mention as a protected act in the Bill of Rights or Constitution. Judges do not make law legislators voted into office by the people do that.

Neither is any kind of sex. But it IS fascinating that you want to stick your nose, so to speak, in the sex lives of others.

I am not sticking my nose into your sex life. Do your thing if you choose just don't expect me to agree with it when yo put it out into the public view.

You go on about sodomy not being legal or in the Constitution. Ok, how do you enforce any law against sodomy then? And I've a ton more hetero sex out in public view than any gay sex. Half the commercials on tv are based on the premise that sex sells.

16" double headed dildo for you?

Damn! What is it with you guys thinking we need a dick? even a fake one?

I'm not even gay and will THANK YOU for that! It gets OLD!!!

 

[Bonzi]

“We should seek a balance between government’s responsibility to abide by the laws of our republic and allowing people to stand by their religious convictions,” Mr. Rubio said in a statement to The New York Times, his first public remarks on the case.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...government-should-respect-kim-daviss-beliefs/

At least Rubio and other conservatives are consistent in their ignorance of the law.

Again, the arrest had nothing to do with Davis' faith, it had to do with her refusal to obey a lawful court order.

Davis could have simply had her staff issue the licenses, relieving her of any 'religious conflict.'

That many on the reprehensible right such as Cruz and Rubio are attempting to contrive a 'controversy' where none exists for some perceived political gain also comes as no surprise.

Not sure/don't think Trump or Carson have weighed in on this ? - steering clear...?

 

[barry1960]

I think that this is an interesting problem for which there is a solution. First, gays are allowed to marry so the state should sanction it. That includes this county. My guess is that homosexuals are flocking to this county to force the issue. Davis attorney suggested a reasonable compromise. Strike the clerk's name from the certificate and process the marriage license. Davis conscience is clear and gays get married. Seems reasonable since her taking office pre-dates the SCOTUS decision. No need to fill our jails with a non-criminals. There is better use of tax payer money. No need to jail her unless the motivation was persecution. Judge spoke as much when he stated she would be jailed until she changed her conviction. I understand gays right to marry in this country on the basis of the supreme court decision. However I see a progression. First the enforcement of gay marriage on government officials. Second, the enforcement of providing wedding related services to homosexuals such as baking cakes etc. Finally, attempting to force Christian churches to marriage homosexuals despite their religious convictions and then a limitation on free speech for those churches that would label homosexuality a sin. Strangely Islamic churches will be exempt from such. No doubt that the gay community has an agenda that they will push and the religious convictions of Christians will be steamrolled. A balance should be struck between homosexual rights and first amendment rights. Funny how a court clerk who refuse to discharge a part of her duties is jailed, but a mayor of a sanctuary city can refuse to enforce immigration law. I have mixed feeling on immigration, but the inconsistency is clear.

 

[westwall]

Licenses to marry are like being forced to get a license for a dog. They make no sense.

Well marriage doesn't make sense either. Why do people feel the need to marry? Often people see it as security, false security. Seeing as 40% of first marriages end in divorce, a marriage doesn't offer anything. Doesn't stop cheating, doesn't stop problems, often causes problems.

I've been in relationships where the person suddenly gets complacent and then it goes downhill from there.

I've known someone whose parents never got married and they're still together 30 years later.

Marriage doesn't do anything except for give legal guarantees, like with inheritance and tax breaks and so on.

There was a gay couple, one guy adopted the other one so they could get most of this legal stuff. Then they had to unadopt so they could get married now that gay marriage is legal. It wasn't the marriage that was important, it was the being together.

The license is merely a way of giving many people what they seek from marriage. The feeling of security, the ritual, the telling everyone how much they love each other, the looking like a princess, the same surname (in various Western cultures) and so on.

What do you care? If it doesn't affect you your opinion truly doesn't matter now does it?

You're a mod and senior staff member on a message board, and you're opinion is that if it doesn't affect you then your opinion doesn't matter.

So, if I talk about WW2 with you, then our opinions don't matter because WW2 is history, and doesn't affect us at all anyway. Same goes with anything in the past that has no relation with the future.

Which then makes such a message board almost meaningless, which means only trolls would be on here, well, that's pretty close to the mark already.

But I'm still not sure why you think it doesn't affect me. It does. So.....

No, we're talking about laws and personal relations that are occurring NOW. Thus your opinion doesn't matter how they choose to lead THEIR lives.

And who are you calling OLD junior!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Licenses to marry are like being forced to get a license for a dog. They make no sense.

Well marriage doesn't make sense either. Why do people feel the need to marry? Often people see it as security, false security. Seeing as 40% of first marriages end in divorce, a marriage doesn't offer anything. Doesn't stop cheating, doesn't stop problems, often causes problems.

I've been in relationships where the person suddenly gets complacent and then it goes downhill from there.

I've known someone whose parents never got married and they're still together 30 years later.

Marriage doesn't do anything except for give legal guarantees, like with inheritance and tax breaks and so on.

There was a gay couple, one guy adopted the other one so they could get most of this legal stuff. Then they had to unadopt so they could get married now that gay marriage is legal. It wasn't the marriage that was important, it was the being together.

The license is merely a way of giving many people what they seek from marriage. The feeling of security, the ritual, the telling everyone how much they love each other, the looking like a princess, the same surname (in various Western cultures) and so on.

What do you care? If it doesn't affect you your opinion truly doesn't matter now does it?

You're a mod and senior staff member on a message board, and you're opinion is that if it doesn't affect you then your opinion doesn't matter.

So, if I talk about WW2 with you, then our opinions don't matter because WW2 is history, and doesn't affect us at all anyway. Same goes with anything in the past that has no relation with the future.

Which then makes such a message board almost meaningless, which means only trolls would be on here, well, that's pretty close to the mark already.

But I'm still not sure why you think it doesn't affect me. It does. So.....

No, we're talking about laws and personal relations that are occurring NOW. Thus your opinion doesn't matter how they choose to lead THEIR lives.

And who are you calling OLD junior!

Well it does matter, society is based on morals, and morals are, or at least were, protected by people talking. Things have changed, but still...... People can do what they like, they can choose to think how they like, and I can say what I like and they can choose to read what I write and they can choose to ignore it or not.

 

[BULLDOG]

I think that this is an interesting problem for which there is a solution. First, gays are allowed to marry so the state should sanction it. That includes this county. My guess is that homosexuals are flocking to this county to force the issue. Davis attorney suggested a reasonable compromise. Strike the clerk's name from the certificate and process the marriage license. Davis conscience is clear and gays get married. Seems reasonable since her taking office pre-dates the SCOTUS decision. No need to fill our jails with a non-criminals. There is better use of tax payer money. No need to jail her unless the motivation was persecution. Judge spoke as much when he stated she would be jailed until she changed her conviction. I understand gays right to marry in this country on the basis of the supreme court decision. However I see a progression. First the enforcement of gay marriage on government officials. Second, the enforcement of providing wedding related services to homosexuals such as baking cakes etc. Finally, attempting to force Christian churches to marriage homosexuals despite their religious convictions and then a limitation on free speech for those churches that would label homosexuality a sin. Strangely Islamic churches will be exempt from such. No doubt that the gay community has an agenda that they will push and the religious convictions of Christians will be steamrolled. A balance should be struck between homosexual rights and first amendment rights. Funny how a court clerk who refuse to discharge a part of her duties is jailed, but a mayor of a sanctuary city can refuse to enforce immigration law. I have mixed feeling on immigration, but the inconsistency is clear.

Churches have and still do deny performing marriages to strait couples for a wide variety of reasons. There has never been a single effort to sue a church to perform a marriage that it didn't want to perform. Your claim that that will change is just fear mongering, and you know it.

 

[Bonzi]

I think that this is an interesting problem for which there is a solution. First, gays are allowed to marry so the state should sanction it. That includes this county. My guess is that homosexuals are flocking to this county to force the issue. Davis attorney suggested a reasonable compromise. Strike the clerk's name from the certificate and process the marriage license. Davis conscience is clear and gays get married. Seems reasonable since her taking office pre-dates the SCOTUS decision. No need to fill our jails with a non-criminals. There is better use of tax payer money. No need to jail her unless the motivation was persecution. Judge spoke as much when he stated she would be jailed until she changed her conviction. I understand gays right to marry in this country on the basis of the supreme court decision. However I see a progression. First the enforcement of gay marriage on government officials. Second, the enforcement of providing wedding related services to homosexuals such as baking cakes etc. Finally, attempting to force Christian churches to marriage homosexuals despite their religious convictions and then a limitation on free speech for those churches that would label homosexuality a sin. Strangely Islamic churches will be exempt from such. No doubt that the gay community has an agenda that they will push and the religious convictions of Christians will be steamrolled. A balance should be struck between homosexual rights and first amendment rights. Funny how a court clerk who refuse to discharge a part of her duties is jailed, but a mayor of a sanctuary city can refuse to enforce immigration law. I have mixed feeling on immigration, but the inconsistency is clear.

Churches have and still do deny performing marriages to strait couples for a wide variety of reasons. There has never been a single effort to sue a church to perform a marriage that it didn't want to perform. Your claim that that will change is just fear mongering, and you know it.

Hubby and I had a few churches turn us down, because he has been married twice before.
I didn't feel discriminated against.
Why would you want someone to marry you that didn't want to?
On the same line, I could never understand people wanting spouses or lovers back that don't want them...?
I wish someone could explain THAT to me!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let's put this in terms everyone can understand.

Kim Davis has all rights to believe what she wants to believe. But she cannot "exercise" her religion as an employee of the Government of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, it is unconstitutional! FACT.

The Constitution forbids government from endorsing religion or engaging in any behavior that does so. When you do what Kim Davis has done, you have breached the Constitution. What I see people doing is clinging onto one part of the First Amendment while ignoring the other. "Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." FACT.

The Government also has rights under the constitution. You cannot make government endorse religious beliefs. It has a constitutional right not to endorse religion in its administration, and is obligated not to. FACT.

When you swear an oath of office which involves doing so impartially, you must do so impartially. If you have been elected to office, you have been elected by and on the good faith of your constituents. When you violate that good faith, when you stop fulfilling your duties for which you have been elected, you breach the oath you swore to them to uphold the law and that office. FACT.

By all merit, Kim Davis not allowing her deputies to issue licenses was her imposing her religious beliefs on her deputies, which is unconstitutional and a breach of oath. FACT.

The law (Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution) that Davis was sworn to obey was not crafted with any caveats, it was crafted to ensure obedience. She broke that law. FACT.

There is no law which says anyone has a right to marry, but there are laws forbidding government from endorsing the marital practices of one religion over others. FACT.

The 14th Amendment comes into play here. You cannot make laws which benefit one group while disparaging another. People born and naturalized in the United States shall be subject to its jurisdiction and that of the states wherein they reside. When you deny licenses to gay couples you violate the 14th Amendment. In general if you deny straight couples licenses, you are doing likewise. FACT.

 

[Bonzi]

This reminds me of the "wedding cake" controversy in a way.
People can and do break the law.
If they do it knowingly, the have the RIGHT (yes, the RIGHT) to do it if they are willing to do the TIME - take the punishment that goes along with it.

We are not puppets.

 

[BULLDOG]

I think that this is an interesting problem for which there is a solution. First, gays are allowed to marry so the state should sanction it. That includes this county. My guess is that homosexuals are flocking to this county to force the issue. Davis attorney suggested a reasonable compromise. Strike the clerk's name from the certificate and process the marriage license. Davis conscience is clear and gays get married. Seems reasonable since her taking office pre-dates the SCOTUS decision. No need to fill our jails with a non-criminals. There is better use of tax payer money. No need to jail her unless the motivation was persecution. Judge spoke as much when he stated she would be jailed until she changed her conviction. I understand gays right to marry in this country on the basis of the supreme court decision. However I see a progression. First the enforcement of gay marriage on government officials. Second, the enforcement of providing wedding related services to homosexuals such as baking cakes etc. Finally, attempting to force Christian churches to marriage homosexuals despite their religious convictions and then a limitation on free speech for those churches that would label homosexuality a sin. Strangely Islamic churches will be exempt from such. No doubt that the gay community has an agenda that they will push and the religious convictions of Christians will be steamrolled. A balance should be struck between homosexual rights and first amendment rights. Funny how a court clerk who refuse to discharge a part of her duties is jailed, but a mayor of a sanctuary city can refuse to enforce immigration law. I have mixed feeling on immigration, but the inconsistency is clear.

Churches have and still do deny performing marriages to strait couples for a wide variety of reasons. There has never been a single effort to sue a church to perform a marriage that it didn't want to perform. Your claim that that will change is just fear mongering, and you know it.

Hubby and I had a few churches turn us down, because he has been married twice before.
I didn't feel discriminated against.
Why would you want someone to marry you that didn't want to?
On the same line, I could never understand people wanting spouses or lovers back that don't want them...?
I wish someone could explain THAT to me!

Lots of possible reasons. The fear of being alone is greater than the humiliation of being with someone who just doesn't like you. The hope that just one great night will make everything good again. Or some are just too crazy to move on.

 

[Bonzi]

I think that this is an interesting problem for which there is a solution. First, gays are allowed to marry so the state should sanction it. That includes this county. My guess is that homosexuals are flocking to this county to force the issue. Davis attorney suggested a reasonable compromise. Strike the clerk's name from the certificate and process the marriage license. Davis conscience is clear and gays get married. Seems reasonable since her taking office pre-dates the SCOTUS decision. No need to fill our jails with a non-criminals. There is better use of tax payer money. No need to jail her unless the motivation was persecution. Judge spoke as much when he stated she would be jailed until she changed her conviction. I understand gays right to marry in this country on the basis of the supreme court decision. However I see a progression. First the enforcement of gay marriage on government officials. Second, the enforcement of providing wedding related services to homosexuals such as baking cakes etc. Finally, attempting to force Christian churches to marriage homosexuals despite their religious convictions and then a limitation on free speech for those churches that would label homosexuality a sin. Strangely Islamic churches will be exempt from such. No doubt that the gay community has an agenda that they will push and the religious convictions of Christians will be steamrolled. A balance should be struck between homosexual rights and first amendment rights. Funny how a court clerk who refuse to discharge a part of her duties is jailed, but a mayor of a sanctuary city can refuse to enforce immigration law. I have mixed feeling on immigration, but the inconsistency is clear.

Churches have and still do deny performing marriages to strait couples for a wide variety of reasons. There has never been a single effort to sue a church to perform a marriage that it didn't want to perform. Your claim that that will change is just fear mongering, and you know it.

Hubby and I had a few churches turn us down, because he has been married twice before.
I didn't feel discriminated against.
Why would you want someone to marry you that didn't want to?
On the same line, I could never understand people wanting spouses or lovers back that don't want them...?
I wish someone could explain THAT to me!

Lots of possible reasons. The fear of being alone is greater than the humiliation of being with someone who just doesn't like you. The hope that just one great night will make everything good again. Or some are just too crazy to move on.

I guess that's why I don't get it because I have NO problem being alone.... just hard to fathom someone staying with me knowing they are miserable. Kinda selfish, no?

 

[BULLDOG]

I think that this is an interesting problem for which there is a solution. First, gays are allowed to marry so the state should sanction it. That includes this county. My guess is that homosexuals are flocking to this county to force the issue. Davis attorney suggested a reasonable compromise. Strike the clerk's name from the certificate and process the marriage license. Davis conscience is clear and gays get married. Seems reasonable since her taking office pre-dates the SCOTUS decision. No need to fill our jails with a non-criminals. There is better use of tax payer money. No need to jail her unless the motivation was persecution. Judge spoke as much when he stated she would be jailed until she changed her conviction. I understand gays right to marry in this country on the basis of the supreme court decision. However I see a progression. First the enforcement of gay marriage on government officials. Second, the enforcement of providing wedding related services to homosexuals such as baking cakes etc. Finally, attempting to force Christian churches to marriage homosexuals despite their religious convictions and then a limitation on free speech for those churches that would label homosexuality a sin. Strangely Islamic churches will be exempt from such. No doubt that the gay community has an agenda that they will push and the religious convictions of Christians will be steamrolled. A balance should be struck between homosexual rights and first amendment rights. Funny how a court clerk who refuse to discharge a part of her duties is jailed, but a mayor of a sanctuary city can refuse to enforce immigration law. I have mixed feeling on immigration, but the inconsistency is clear.

Churches have and still do deny performing marriages to strait couples for a wide variety of reasons. There has never been a single effort to sue a church to perform a marriage that it didn't want to perform. Your claim that that will change is just fear mongering, and you know it.

Hubby and I had a few churches turn us down, because he has been married twice before.
I didn't feel discriminated against.
Why would you want someone to marry you that didn't want to?
On the same line, I could never understand people wanting spouses or lovers back that don't want them...?
I wish someone could explain THAT to me!

Lots of possible reasons. The fear of being alone is greater than the humiliation of being with someone who just doesn't like you. The hope that just one great night will make everything good again. Or some are just too crazy to move on.

I guess that's why I don't get it because I have NO problem being alone.... just hard to fathom someone staying with me knowing they are miserable. Kinda selfish, no?

I guess, but I prefer to think of it as desperately confused about what the sane course might be.

 

[EriktheRed]

...The Will of the People would appear to support same sex marriage: Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage

Methinks that the "people's representatives" might want to get in touch with "the people".

Scenario:

1. the recent SCOTUS ruling is reversed

2. States begin to pass Defense of Marriage -type referenda and statute once again.

3. this time, those referenda and statute withstand judicial scrutiny, with a more tradition-sympathetic court

=======================================

People were dead-set against homosexual marriage for a very long time, until very, very recently, according to various polls.

People began to give-up on defending the sanctity of marriage, as it became increasingly clear, that their own government was out to torpedo it.

Latter-day polls reflect this giving-up, if-you-can't-fight-'em-join-'em, taking-the-path-of-least-resistance approach - exhausted after years of fighting the good fight.

If some backbone were once again injected into this fight, along with some realistic prospect of actually winning, and reversing this perversion, those Polls would change.

In a heartbeat.

That is what will be required, in any Next Round of the Battle, in which the country is now engaged.

And, given that the only polls that truly count, are the ballot box, and given that State after State had formerly passed Defense of Marriage -like referenda or legislation - only to have them struck-down by activist judges...

The TRUE polling track-record (all those referenda and statute) do not support your conclusion, in this regard.

America needs to find its backbone again, in this matter.

We may be seeing the opening gambit of just such a thing, this very day.

Yeah, unskew those polls!

 

[Ravi]

I would LMAO if the judge got fried by lightning or some other unfortunate accident.

Many of your fellow fundie Muslims would.

 

[Kondor3]

...I didn't, MORON! Pay attention to who you are engaging.

Damned feeble...

Yes, your complete lack of ability to pay attention to who, and what they are saying is feeble indeed. But, as they say, once you have figured out you have a problem, and admitted it, you are on your way to recovery. Congratulations, you might figure it out someday.

Are you done pissing on your own shoe,yet?

Can we get back to the topic at hand?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Let's put this in terms everyone can understand.

Kim Davis has all rights to believe what she wants to believe. But she cannot "exercise" her religion as an employee of the Government of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, it is unconstitutional! FACT.

The Constitution forbids government from endorsing religion or engaging in any behavior that does so. When you do what Kim Davis has done, you have breached the Constitution. What I see people doing is clinging onto one part of the First Amendment while ignoring the other. "Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." FACT.

The Government also has rights under the constitution. You cannot make government endorse religious beliefs. It has a constitutional right not to endorse religion in its administration, and is obligated not to. FACT.

When you swear an oath of office which involves doing so impartially, you must do so impartially. If you have been elected to office, you have been elected by and on the good faith of your constituents. When you violate that good faith, when you stop fulfilling your duties for which you have been elected, you breach the oath you swore to them to uphold the law and that office. FACT.

By all merit, Kim Davis not allowing her deputies to issue licenses was her imposing her religious beliefs on her deputies, which is unconstitutional and a breach of oath. FACT.

The law (Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution) that Davis was sworn to obey was not crafted with any caveats, it was crafted to ensure obedience. She broke that law. FACT.

There is no law which says anyone has a right to marry, but there are laws forbidding government from endorsing the marital practices of one religion over others. FACT.

The 14th Amendment comes into play here. You cannot make laws which benefit one group while disparaging another. People born and naturalized in the United States shall be subject to its jurisdiction and that of the states wherein they reside. When you deny licenses to gay couples you violate the 14th Amendment. In general if you deny straight couples licenses, you are doing likewise. FACT.

Translation: A man can now walk into a County Clerk's office and demand a marriage license for him and his goat. PETA says animals have rights too. And you know we all have to bow down to whatever a liberal group wants. This slippery slope never ends.

 

[Kondor3]

...Yeah, unskew those polls!

Oh, I have no doubt that the polls du jour are reasonably accurate.

It's just that we're dealing with a population that overwhelmingly voted for Defense of Marriage -type referenda and statute, no more than a few years ago.

And, having had their Will overridden by activist judges, time and again, people eventually throw up their hands, and give up, being unwilling to invest more emotion in the effort.

This is a state of affairs that the Gay Mafia has long cultivated, a state that provided them the opening they needed to win several recent legal victories, and a state of affairs that they wish to perpetuate ad infinitum, if they can get away with it.

Well, they can't.

The Nation and its People may - or may not - decide to set right this (so far, temporary) abomination, but...

It's entirely possible - even probable, if a more conservative Administration joins a more conservative Congress.

That possibility is one of the reasons why Americans are beginning to look forward to the advent of such an Administration and Congress.

A little arm-twisting of the Supreme Court, inserting a more Conservative justice or two on the bench, a fresh and imaginative approach-vector for the next-round legal assault, a resubmit, and the persistence to see the thing through to its necessary and far happier legal outcome, and righteousness and sanity will once again dominate our public life.

For now, the issue can be put on the back-burner until that new Administration and Congress are sworn-in, so as not to over-excite the Libertines.

Once in power, however, the fun can begin...