Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[Vandalshandle]

I kind of like the phrase, "physically outspoken congregants". However, I think that they considered it, and rejected the phrase, in favor of "Moral Majority". It was more catchy, so to speak.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

physically outspoken congregants???? What the fuck does that mean? An inquisition? Salem style witch trials of gays? A new crusade?

Please do try to refrain from attempting to make the correction of your reading comprehension issue a board project.

Yes Boss....

 

[Statistikhengst]

Good. Woman is an idiot.

Can you spell "MARTYR"?

Yes I can. If she thinks she's a martyr, I'm sure she gets all tingly about it.....Lester Maddox and George Wallace thought they were martyrs too.

Not really. They hated blacks.

This lady says she doesn't hate Gays.

Your problem is you assume anyone who doesn't agree with you hates you.

RIght...the old "I don't hate gays, I just don't serve them in my duly elected compacity" schtick. If she refused to marry Jews, I'm SURE you wouldn't call her an anti-semite.

It's not a sin to be a Jew.

Well, damn, I'm just so relieved to hear that from your mouth.

 

[Statistikhengst]

...for failure to obey court order of issuing marraige licenses to gay couples.

News from The Associated Press

Obama's and the Democrat Party's first political prisoner. We are no longer free Americans. The transfer of our rights is now whatever democrats tell us. The transformation is complete.

Black helicopters, black helicopters everywhere!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hopefully they still fine her too. To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.

No fines, so far. The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested. Love it!

She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.

Hopefully they still fine her too. To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.

No fines, so far. The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested. Love it!

She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.

Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?

it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.

She is the Christian Roa Parks, but only with God on her side.

Rut-roh!!

"Roa"???

 

[Statistikhengst]

Bigot.

Let's let her go back to work on the condition that God pays her from now on instead of taxpayers. Think she'd agree to that? (he-hee-hee)

I'd back her if she had made that stand and refused her pay based on her religious beliefs.

Fucking hypocrite.

God should pay her????

No problem........

After all is said and done, God is on her side, no matter what heathens think or say.

Well if he is then her god is entirely unworthy of praise...

Dick sucking and carpet munching is praiseworthy? No thanks.

Wouldn't that depend on which gender is sucking the dick or munching the carpet?

 

[paperview]

Well, until that happens, Kim can obey the law, or rot in jail, just like everybody else. It is her choice. I'm just glad that none of my taxes are paying her salary while she sits there reading her Bible.

Civil Disobedience to immoral laws (and rulings) is a time-honored tradition, worldwide.

Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.

Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a BAD law, you end-up a folk-hero.

Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'

And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'

Article VI is not in dispute.

A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.

And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.

Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.

Civil disobedience is generally utilized by people against a government infringement

-- here is the government, which mantle Kim Davis was wearing in her position as country clerk -- infringing on the citizens.

 

[paperview]

Hopefully they still fine her too. To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.

No fines, so far. The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested. Love it!

She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.

Hopefully they still fine her too. To recoup some of the taxpayer's money she's still receiving despite refusing to do her job.

No fines, so far. The Judge didn't want the little Jesus-freaks paying up for her, so he had that dumb **** arrested. Love it!

She went to jail willingly, and with a "thank you" to the Marshals taking her into custody.

Ah....civil disobedience is just so sweet when it's a white person, isn't it?

it's right up there with how MLK did his, let the system arrest you to show the injustice of the system.

She is the Christian Roa Parks, but only with God on her side.

In the Rosa Parks saga, Davis would be the bus driver.

 

[Statistikhengst]

You liberals are evil in your celebration of this political prisoner's imprisonment.

It's not political, she's breaking the law, and now in jail where she belongs for doing so...

It's political. We know who is on what side here. America has jailed a political prisoner..a Christian. Obama has declared war on Christians and is no different than ISIS.

Preach, brother, PREACH!!!!

(and then grab your smelling salts)

 

[dcraelin]

Civil Disobedience to immoral laws (and rulings) is a time-honored tradition, worldwide.

Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.

Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a BAD law, you end-up a folk-hero.

Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'

And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'

Article VI is not in dispute.

A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.

And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.

Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.

The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.

well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.

Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.

Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a BAD law, you end-up a folk-hero.

Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'

And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'

Article VI is not in dispute.

A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.

And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.

Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.

The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.

well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.

Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.

No, it's not a 'claim,' the marriage ban in fact violated the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:

“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Obergefell is consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.

Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a BAD law, you end-up a folk-hero.

Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'

And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'

Article VI is not in dispute.

A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.

And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.

Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.

The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.

well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.

Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.

Kegan and Ginsberg should have recused themselves? Why? because they were outspoken and demonstrable about their position on the issue? By that criteria, Thomas and Scalia should have also recused themselves. They have spewed a lot of anti gay crap. However, the fact is that no one had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, and no one was personally acquainted with any of the litigants. Therefore, it's a bullshit argument.

 

[Faun]

Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.

Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a BAD law, you end-up a folk-hero.

Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'

And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'

Article VI is not in dispute.

A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.

And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.

Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.

The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.

well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.

Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.

If justices should have recused themselves for officiating at gay weddings, shouldn't justices that have expressed contempt for gay marriages also have recused themselves?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.

Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a BAD law, you end-up a folk-hero.

Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'

And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'

Article VI is not in dispute.

A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.

And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.

Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.

The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.

well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.

Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.

Another horseshit argument...


The 14th was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. However, it serves to protect against all other forms of discrimination as well.

The Fourteenth was intended by the framers of the Fourteenth to extend the jurisdiction and protection of federal courts to all rights recognized by the Constitution and Bill of Rights against actions by state government.

First, "any law" includes the state constitution, which is its supreme law, subject to the U.S. Constitution.

Second, for the framers of the 14th Amendment the term of art, "immunities", meant all those rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, including those of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The framers of the Fourteenth used the word "immunities" because the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rights against action by government, which are "immunities", as distinct from contractual or tort rights. http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

And consider this as well:

On Jan 12., 1866, Rep. John Bingham of Ohio began the drafting of the Fourteenth by a proposed amendment to the Joint Senate-House Committee of 15:

The Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all persons in every state within this Union equal protection in their rights of life, liberty and property.

On January 20 the Joint Committee's subcommittee considering drafts of constitutional amendments reported to the full Joint Committee an expanded form of the Bingham proposal that read as follows:

Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to secure to all citizens of the United States, in every State, the same political rights and privileges; and to all persons in every State equal protection in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property."[4]

On February 1, 1866, Senator Benjamin G. Brown of Missouri introduced, and the Senate adopted, a resolution that the Joint Committee consider an amendment to the Constitution

so as to declare with greater certainty the power of Congress to enforce and determine by appropriate legislation all the guarantees contained in that instrument[11] (emphasis added).

This resolution thus anticipated the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights.

It’s pretty clear what the intent was. It has been applied in a wide variety of cases that did not involve race

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma has presented the U.S. Supreme Court with some peculiar 14th Amendment cases.

In 1942, the high court ruled that an Oklahoma law allowing some “habitual criminals” to be sterilized violated the equal protection rights of an armed robber because the law didn’t subject white collar criminals to sterilization.

“Sterilization of those who have thrice committed grand larceny with immunity for those who are embezzlers is a clear, pointed, unmistakable discrimination,” the court said.

In 1976, the high court found another 14th Amendment violation with an Oklahoma law that allowed women who were 18 or older to buy 3.2 beer, but prohibited men younger than 21 from buying it.

“We conclude that the gender-based differential contained in (the Oklahoma law) constitutes a denial of the equal protection of the laws to males aged 18-20,” the court said. http://newsok.com/the-14th-amendment-does-it-protect-same-sex-marriage/article/3954825

You might also know that there were 14 Supreme Court Cases that established Marriage as a Fundamental Right http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Here are some notable cases where race was not a factor and were decided on the 14th amendment. Does anyone think that these decisions were a liberal over reach??

Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”


Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”

There are more, but you get the idea. So get over it. You had better take a chill pill in June when SCOTUS rules that same sex marriage is in fact a right under the 14th amendment. Have a good evening.

 

[Debra K]

Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.

Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a BAD law, you end-up a folk-hero.

Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'

And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'

Article VI is not in dispute.

A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.

And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.

Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.

The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.

well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.

Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.

dcraelin said, "But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves."

The Fourteenth Amendment uses the word "persons". Former slaves fall within the category of "persons". Thus, former slaves as well as all other persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States are protected by the Constitution.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says:

"Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.

Source: Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 (1886)

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.

Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a BAD law, you end-up a folk-hero.

Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'

And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'

Article VI is not in dispute.

A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.

And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.

Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.

The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.

well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.

Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.

Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a BAD law, you end-up a folk-hero.

Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'

And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'

Article VI is not in dispute.

A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.

And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.

Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.

The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.

well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.

Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.

Third horseshit argument


There is no need for a constitutional amendment to legalize same sex marriage and this is why:

Although the U.S. Constitution (approved September 17, 1787) contains no direct references to slavery, it includes several indirect references to that "peculiar institution." The following are the references as well as translations of the legal language. http://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/i/incidents-in-the-life-of-a-slave-girl/critical-essays/we-the-people----slavery-and-the-us-constitution

In addition, the states were not bound by the bill of rights until the passage of the 14th amendment, which precluded the courts from abolishing slavery

Women’s suffrage, as well as voting rights based on race draw a closer parallel to the same sex marriage issue. The issue of voting rights in the United States has been contentious throughout United States history. Eligibility to vote in the United States is relevant at both the federal and state levels. In the absence of a specific federal law or constitutional provision, each state is given considerable discretion to establish qualifications for suffrage and candidacy within its own respective jurisdiction.

Perhaps both of those issues concerning voting could have been resolved through the courts rather by amendment but it took a different trajectory. A court challenge was in fact mounted in 1872 which tried but failed to make the case that women had the right to vote under the 14th amendment. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/nineteentham.htm

That was then and this is now and it is not a reason to say that same sex marriage must be, or can only be resolved but an amendment.

It has been said that you can't use the Constitution to support gay marriage when the wording doesn't exist. The fact is that you can’t use the constitution to restrict marriage based on orientation because for the same reason. Many courts have agreed with that and have said that bans on same sex marriage are unconstitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Civil Disobedience to immoral laws (and rulings) is a time-honored tradition, worldwide.

Getting put in jail for breaking the law is also a time honored tradition.

Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a BAD law, you end-up a folk-hero.

Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'

And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'

Article VI is not in dispute.

A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.

And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.

Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.

Civil disobedience is generally utilized by people against a government infringement

-- here is the government, which mantle Kim Davis was wearing in her position as country clerk -- infringing on the citizens.

Correct.

What Davis is doing has nothing to do with 'civil disobedience.'

It has to do with contempt for the rule of law, contempt for the Supreme Court, and contempt for the Constitution.

Indeed, Davis isn't being held against her will, she could be home this week if she so desires. She's in jail as a result of her own free will, and she can leave any time she wants.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves.

There was no need for Justices Kagan or Justice Gingsberg to recuse themselves just as their was no reason for any of the other Justices that were married or had performed marriages in the past to recuse themselves. The question that would be coming to the court was whether states could deny SSCM. One marriage was performed in Maryland the other in D.C.

Maryland passed SSCM based on a ballot initiative and D.C. passed it based on the action of the governing council. In neither jurisdiction was SSCM illegal or in any way a question before the court.


>>>>

 

[dcraelin]

Yep. And if you go to jail for breaking a BAD law, you end-up a folk-hero.

Article VI of the Constitution is not a 'bad law.'

And refusing to obey the Constitution makes one in contempt, not a 'folk hero.'

Article VI is not in dispute.

A ruling by SCOTUS is in dispute.

And, when the Objector points to the immorality which the ruling forces upon public servants, well, whether you like it or not, that person does, indeed, end-up a folk-hero.

Civil Disobedience - a time-honored tradition in this country, and elsewhere.

The SCOTUS gay marriage ruling is based primarily on the 14th amendment, Due Process Clause.

well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.

Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.

No, it's not a 'claim,' the marriage ban in fact violated the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment:

“The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Obergefell is consistent with settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence.

gee, 4 Supremes didnt see it that way......if it was so obvious why not a unanimous decision?

It seems like it could be an accident of politics

and are you going to agree with( I think) those same justices in their majority opinion in Arizona that we are a democracy?