Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[TheProgressivePatriot]

She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would have rolled over and let gays marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.

MLK stood for equality and inclusion

Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently

Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.

 

[koshergrl]

She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would have rolled over and let gays marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.

MLK stood for equality and inclusion

Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently

Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.

MLK was a Christian PREACHER who was anti-abortion and adamant about the right of people to act as their conscience dictates, REGARDLESS of bad and discriminatory law.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

First of all, this is not a “left-right issue” -not any longer. A good many prominent Republicans, business leaders and even clergy got behind the plaintiffs because they realized that discrimination is no longer sustainable and bad for business. While fewer Republicans supported same sex marriage, there numbers are growing , especially among younger people.

Let's try this again, I had to just laugh at you the first time.

Your reference to wanting to marry Christie Brinkley is ridiculous on the face of it. We are talking about the right to choose who you marry from among those who will choose to marry you. Heterosexuals could do that, before Obergefell, gays did not have that same right. This has to be just more of your manipulation and game playing because I don’t

What is ridiculous is the claim that people have the "right" marry whomever they please. As with most of what the left claims, this is absurdity couched in fantasy.

You go on to say “The first ingredient is two willing adults - again given the propensity of leftists to insanity, this is subject to change at the whim of the SCOTUS” What the fuck does that mean.?? That the next thing will be to do away with mutual consent . Who is insane??

I find that the left has no anchor to rationality. Ayn Rand referred to you as the "fakers of reality," who not liking the constraints of reality, simply pretend that what you desire is in fact real, despite the fact that it is not. The fable of the Emperor's New Clothes was penned to describe exactly what it is the left does.

Then you blather on about sexual attraction which you seem to think is unimportant and that, old sport, may actually be the crux of your problem. Perhaps there is not enough love in your life? Is that why you are so angry and want to deprive others of what you can take for granted…or at least could if you were able to find love yourself. Then you allude to marriage being about procreation which is just more horseshit.

I'm sure I lost you once I spoke of society and culture predating Marx, and yet reality still is...

The institution of marriage is not a Jewish or Christian one. Oddly it developed in virtually every successful society throughout history. Some people have wondered why that is? We can call these people "anthropologists."

Before we go on, we have to make an assumption, that is that evolution is real. It's not a huge leap, the evidence is overwhelming, irrefutable actually. So evolution is real, and there is an innate drive in humans to survive. Because humans are social animals, part of the survival strategy of the species is the formation of societies.

Now a couple of things, a pregnant female is vulnerable, as is one nursing or caring for young children. Granted, you are a leftist and think history started with MTV, but that which makes man a successful species is actually a bit older. Cultures developed to protect pregnant females and their offspring. This is because the evolutionary impetus of the species is to survive.

I know, this is hard for you to grasp, Jon Stewart never said anything about replication of genetic codes and the propagation of ones own DNA. Marriage developed in the species as a means to entice males to remain with the females to protect the vulnerable female and offspring. This is what anthropologists call a "survival strategy." Enticing two males to cohabit confers no advantage to the species, quite the opposite. Homosexuality in fact is most likely a genetic kill switch, an evolutionary mechanism to remove unwanted DNA from the species.

The biggest bunch of bovine excrement in this is your contention that “the left” wants to destroy American culture. Are you fucking serious? Collectivism and authoritarian rule.? Right, authoritarian rule was those laws that banned gay marriage you fool!

Yes marriage is a stabilizing force-you actually got something right. That is why it must be open to all who wish to engage in it. If you broaden the base of an institution and make it more inclusive, you strengthen it.

I just can't believe that you are stupid enough to believe your own bovine excrement. This has got to be some sick game. Please give me a sign that you have a brain.

Lenin wrote that if given control of one generation of children, he could create a society completely loyal to the state. Lenin failed, but the ideal of the left to destroy the nuclear family remains. The dream of a collectivist society under authoritarian rule is retarded (I'll say!) by the presence of the family. People are more loyal to family (remember, evolution is real - reality is.) than they are to the rulers of the state, You of the left have waged war on the family and on marriage since the days of Marx.

I'm not even going to attempt to deal with all of your inane ranting. Just one thing. What about the destruction of nuclear family ? Are you saying that two people of the same sex who are loving parents-who have children who love them and regard them as their parents are not a nuclear family. That is just fucking stupid!

 

[koshergrl]

First of all, this is not a “left-right issue” -not any longer. A good many prominent Republicans, business leaders and even clergy got behind the plaintiffs because they realized that discrimination is no longer sustainable and bad for business. While fewer Republicans supported same sex marriage, there numbers are growing , especially among younger people.

Let's try this again, I had to just laugh at you the first time.

Your reference to wanting to marry Christie Brinkley is ridiculous on the face of it. We are talking about the right to choose who you marry from among those who will choose to marry you. Heterosexuals could do that, before Obergefell, gays did not have that same right. This has to be just more of your manipulation and game playing because I don’t

What is ridiculous is the claim that people have the "right" marry whomever they please. As with most of what the left claims, this is absurdity couched in fantasy.

You go on to say “The first ingredient is two willing adults - again given the propensity of leftists to insanity, this is subject to change at the whim of the SCOTUS” What the fuck does that mean.?? That the next thing will be to do away with mutual consent . Who is insane??

I find that the left has no anchor to rationality. Ayn Rand referred to you as the "fakers of reality," who not liking the constraints of reality, simply pretend that what you desire is in fact real, despite the fact that it is not. The fable of the Emperor's New Clothes was penned to describe exactly what it is the left does.

Then you blather on about sexual attraction which you seem to think is unimportant and that, old sport, may actually be the crux of your problem. Perhaps there is not enough love in your life? Is that why you are so angry and want to deprive others of what you can take for granted…or at least could if you were able to find love yourself. Then you allude to marriage being about procreation which is just more horseshit.

I'm sure I lost you once I spoke of society and culture predating Marx, and yet reality still is...

The institution of marriage is not a Jewish or Christian one. Oddly it developed in virtually every successful society throughout history. Some people have wondered why that is? We can call these people "anthropologists."

Before we go on, we have to make an assumption, that is that evolution is real. It's not a huge leap, the evidence is overwhelming, irrefutable actually. So evolution is real, and there is an innate drive in humans to survive. Because humans are social animals, part of the survival strategy of the species is the formation of societies.

Now a couple of things, a pregnant female is vulnerable, as is one nursing or caring for young children. Granted, you are a leftist and think history started with MTV, but that which makes man a successful species is actually a bit older. Cultures developed to protect pregnant females and their offspring. This is because the evolutionary impetus of the species is to survive.

I know, this is hard for you to grasp, Jon Stewart never said anything about replication of genetic codes and the propagation of ones own DNA. Marriage developed in the species as a means to entice males to remain with the females to protect the vulnerable female and offspring. This is what anthropologists call a "survival strategy." Enticing two males to cohabit confers no advantage to the species, quite the opposite. Homosexuality in fact is most likely a genetic kill switch, an evolutionary mechanism to remove unwanted DNA from the species.

The biggest bunch of bovine excrement in this is your contention that “the left” wants to destroy American culture. Are you fucking serious? Collectivism and authoritarian rule.? Right, authoritarian rule was those laws that banned gay marriage you fool!

Yes marriage is a stabilizing force-you actually got something right. That is why it must be open to all who wish to engage in it. If you broaden the base of an institution and make it more inclusive, you strengthen it.

I just can't believe that you are stupid enough to believe your own bovine excrement. This has got to be some sick game. Please give me a sign that you have a brain.

Lenin wrote that if given control of one generation of children, he could create a society completely loyal to the state. Lenin failed, but the ideal of the left to destroy the nuclear family remains. The dream of a collectivist society under authoritarian rule is retarded (I'll say!) by the presence of the family. People are more loyal to family (remember, evolution is real - reality is.) than they are to the rulers of the state, You of the left have waged war on the family and on marriage since the days of Marx.

I'm not even going to attempt to deal with all of your inane ranting. Just one thing. What about the destruction of nuclear family ? Are you saying that two people of the same sex who are loving parents-who have children who love them and regard them as their parents are not a nuclear family. That is just fucking stupid!

Homosexuals are mentally ill. They always have been, and they have no business raising kids.


Mother's lawsuit over mistaken sperm donation dismissed

The little boy who started a sex change aged eight because he (and his lesbian parents) knew he always wanted to be a girl

Gay rights campaigner led a double life as leader of paedophile ring that carried out a catalogue of child abuse

 

[Debra K]

I provided links numerous times in many threads to the legal documents, including the hearing transcript, in the case against Kim Davis.

You have a link to the hearing transcripts?

Could I humbly request that you post it again, I'd love to read it.

Thank you in advance.

WW

>>>>

0:15-cv-00044 #29

The above link contains the file (329 pages) regarding Defendant Kim Davis's Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The transcript of the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is Davis's Exhibits A & B (pages 50-162; 163-246). The hearing was had over two days: July 13, 2015, and July 20, 2015.

The link is worthless. And that is because the reader is forced to wade through 329 pages of drivel, in hopes of culling from such: YOUR POINT.

Fact: Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Fact: The Law in Davis' State remains: Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

Fact: Davis is the Clerk of her County's Court, she is a Christiana and recognizes God's law FORBIDDING Deviant Sexual Behavior... and Christ's teaching which defines Marriage as: THe Joining of One Man and One Woman.

And the First Amendment of the USC, which precludes the State from passing any law, which usurps her means to exercise her religion.

That is ALL that is relevant here.

I didn't provide the link for you. I provided the link because another poster wanted to read the transcripts of the hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction. I provided the page numbers where the transcripts are located. Perhaps others would like to peruse the file, but I didn't expect that you would care to do so. After all, I understand that reading the actual court papers and transcripts is too much trouble when you prefer to pull shit out of your ass. It's much easier for you to just make it up as you go ... just like you did above.

BTW, what law did the State of Kentucky pass that prohibits the free exercise of Kim Davis's religion? Why don't you scratch around your butt for the answer and give us an update.

 

[koshergrl]

She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would have rolled over and let gays marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.

MLK stood for equality and inclusion

Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently

Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.

Nobody cares if they get married. Let them get married by people who want to marry them, and let them eat cake that people who want to bake cakes for them make for them.

Leave the majority of us alone. You fags can do your own thing, but leave us out of it. We aren't interested, we never have been interested.

 

[Vigilante]

Many times this QUEER SHIT is simply a diversion from much more important topics....

 

[Debra K]

She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would have rolled over and let gays marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.

You don't have any common sense if you think it's up to you to "let gays marry".

 

[koshergrl]

She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would have rolled over and let gays marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.

You don't have any common sense if you think it's up to you to "let gays marry".

Gays can do anything they want.

Except force people who see homo unions as sacrilege to endorse their marriages.

 

[Faun]

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.

no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.

Interesting how you just gloss over the point that I made about Thomas and Scalia and just repeat the same crap over again.

You might consider the fact that there was a 25 day window of opportunity to file a motion to rehear the case without Kagan and Ginsberg, However, the AGs of the 4 states involved would not do so because they knew that it was a loosing proposition. So please give it a rest!

It is a losing proposition.

The decision to license degeneracy indicates a severe collapse of the moral foundation of the culture. As a result, history shows that Western Civilization will soon collapse and a new culture will rise from it, sans the degenerates, as a more well centered people seek to do business, absent the idiots.

My guess is that 60-80% of the US population will be dead inside 10 years, as a result of the looming civil war.

At the end of that, you will not be able to start a poker game in the US with people who will admit to ever having an unclean thought... let alone that they've sexual feelings for people of the same gender.

Europe will of course be governed under Sharia Law... and shortly after we get our shit together here, we'll be forced to burn Europe to the ground, via nuclear means. With the goal being to eradicate every living thing on the continent.

Puh-lease. Conservatives are bigger degenerates than gays and we let folks like you marry.

 

[Kondor3]

...Either way, no matter how you look at it, this does not look good for "Christianity", n'est ce pas?...

Why is only one Christian county-clerk in the entire country doing this?

3000 (3007, actually, but let's make it a nice, round number)...

3000 counties in the United States...

2100 Christian county clerks ( 3000 X 70% ) ( 70% Christian population in the US )

Narrow it down...

How many are 'Sunshine Patriot' -type Christians and rarely (if ever) exert any effort to adhere to the practices of their denomination? Ten percent?

2100 X 10% = 210 clerks who might even consider doing such a thing.

How many of those are scared of losing their jobs and pensions, to the point of paralysis and accommodation? Ninety-five percent?

210 X 5% = 11 ( 5% survivors of the 210 who aren't paralyzed by fear, and rounded up from 10.5)

Out of those 11, how many decided to wait until somebody else went first? 10 out of 11? Seems believable.

11 - 10 = 1

1 = Kim Davis

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

You can throw rocks at the numbers until the cows come home, but, at least it's a first pass, at quantifying your inquiry, and introducing another concept or two (paralysis, due to fear over loss of job, pension, etc.) in a context that demonstrates just how overwhelmingly significant that particular element of the equation is.

There are 3,140+ counties in the USA....

I read a few minutes before writing that post that there were 3007. Maybe I was wrong. Doesn't matter. It's in the low threes. I'm sure I can fudge the math well enough to distill it down to one, without much trouble, but we really don't have to do that.

It was merely an exercise designed to answer the original inquiry about why she was the only one doing it.

 

[dcraelin]

no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.

Interesting how you just gloss over the point that I made about Thomas and Scalia and just repeat the same crap over again.

You might consider the fact that there was a 25 day window of opportunity to file a motion to rehear the case without Kagan and Ginsberg, However, the AGs of the 4 states involved would not do so because they knew that it was a loosing proposition. So please give it a rest!

they perhaps knew the deck was rigged ,,yes.................and your "point" on Thomas and Scalia on guns was answered I believe

You really want to talk about Thomas and Scalia??

Kagan and Ginsburg were no more biased that Scalia and Thomas Here is Thomas on gay rights with Scalia also dissenting in both

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Thomas issued a one-page dissent where he called the Texas anti-gay sodomy statute "uncommonly silly." He then said that if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would vote to repeal the law, as it was not a worthwhile use of "law enforcement resources" to police private sexual behavior. Since he was not a member of the state legislature, but instead a federal judge, and the Due Process Clause did not (in his view) touch on the subject, he could not vote to strike it down. Accordingly, Thomas saw the issue as a matter for the states to decide for themselves.[162]

He could not be bothered to join the majority because he though that it was sill. It's apparent that he also thought that gay rights don't matter much or that due process applies to them

In Romer v. Evans (1996), Thomas joined Scalia's dissenting opinion arguing that Amendment 2 to the Colorado State Constitution did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Colorado amendment forbade any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships."[163] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas

As for Scalia:

Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court

Tell us again how Kegan and Ginsberg are more biased than these guys. There is more:

The section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding. Judicial disqualification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

None of this applies to Kagan and Ginsburg. None of it. However, Thomas did in fact have a personal stake in a number of cases. :

Virginia "Ginni" Thomas is no ordinary Supreme Court spouse. Unlike Maureen Scalia, mother of nine, or the late Martin Ginsburg, mild-mannered tax law professor who was good in the kitchen, Thomas came from the world of bare-knuckled partisan politics. Over the years, she has enmeshed herself ever more deeply in the world of political advocacy—all the while creating a heap of conflict of interest concerns surrounding her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/ginni-thomas-groundswell-conflict-interest]

Tell us how many times Thomas recused himself from ANY CASE.

Finally……

The general rule is that, to warrant recusal, a judge's expression of an opinion about the merits of a case, or his familiarity with the facts or the parties, must have originated in a source outside the case itself. This is referred to in the United States as the "extra-judicial source rule" and was recognized as a general presumption, although not an invariable one, in the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Liteky v. United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification

Now lets cut the crap. It's over!

your complaining about Thomas in lawrence v texas where he apparently sided with you?

Ive tried to get through Romer v Evans.....it is a muddled mess of an opinion, with double negatives negated and similar verbal gymnastics.......I have other comment on the board about that case.

Scalia and Thomas may have had opinions on the matter, maybe even been biased,,.............but they didnt opt to preside over gay weddings publicly when the issue was before the court..........thus proclaiming for all the world how seriously they would take opposition arguments.....it also shows, as does the Valentines Day opinion, that their opinions were based more on emotions than law and logic.

Thomas was callously indifferent to the issue in Lawrence. Of course he and Thomas did not preside over same sex marriages....geeeeze. Their opinions were based on emotion? Is that supposed to be a defense of their bias. You mention Romer, but gloss over all of the other damaging information that I presented on both Scalia and Thomas.

there was no damaging information......the presiding role in a ceremony like marriage is given to judges precisely because they are judges and it shows poor judgement to take up such a role when the issue was before the courts.

 

[Faun]

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.

You do not see it as Civil Disobedience. I do, as do a great many others. Impasse.

WTF?? Since when does the government partake in civil disobedience against the public??

You conservatives get everything ass backwards. Civil disobedience is the complete opposite of what you think it is. It's the public acting defiantly against the government -- not the other way around.

 

[MaryL]

She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would have rolled over and let gays marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.

MLK stood for equality and inclusion

Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently

Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.

Surprise surprise, more hate speech from a liberal. We all have the same rights.Gays want...more. Because that's "equal". We all have the same rights. There isn't ANY oppression, accept in your mind. Life liberty, freedom of expression, we ALL have that. So were did this same sex marriage thing come from? You can LOVE who ever or how many other different folks and sexes real imagined or whatever. But marriage is, or should be reserved for those that CAN and DO reproduce, not sexual dysfunctional whinners with a bankroll and lawyers seeking validation.

 

[dcraelin]

well Im talking about the play on the emotions that propelled the federal judiciary to ignore the Constitution and use verbal sophistry to pass what they had a warm and fuzzy feeling about.

The Valentine decision will forever be emblematic of this.

No, you're talking about a ridiculous lie you've contrived and are trying to propagate.

The Obergefell Court followed the Constitution, it followed settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and it followed the rule of law.

The states may not seek to disadvantage through force of law a class of persons predicated solely on who they are, including gay Americans.

“The fourteenth amendment...prohibits any state legislation which has the effect of denying to any...class [of persons], or to any individual, the equal protection of the laws.”

Civil Rights Cases (1883)

gee, 4 of 9 justices disagreed. doesn't sound so cut and dried to me,.....

and my post was about how this will be remembered in the future...and the Valentine days ruling will be a lasting example of the emotional bases for these rulings, rather than a sober and logical look at the law.

I'm willing to be that your another one who has not bothered to read the opinion but is , nevertheless willing to dismiss it as "emotional" and as not following the law. Here are selected excerpts for you convenience. While you read, count the number of earlier cases that were cited to support the decision....just in the portions that I provided and then tell us again how this is not based on solid case law :

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*



Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriagebetween two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.



(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Pg.2



(2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. Pg. 3



A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, pg.3


A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguardschildren and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issuethus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___.Pg.3


Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle,yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that theStates have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instabilitymany opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. Pg.4



(4) 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. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23. Pg.5




There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. Pg 5

I almost never read majority opinions,....the dissents contain the most true wisdom in our joke of a federal court system.

I did see one case mentioned Baker v. Nelson

which they said they overruled ...........so much for a solid basis in precedent.

You never read majority opinions? Maybe that's your problem. You think that the senseless rants of Thomas and Scalia were the truest wisdom? Seriously?

The issue of Baker being a controlling precedent had been questionable for some time as it was from a prior era in case law, long before gay rights were considered at all. This was just the final blow.

some of the greatest judges in the history of the court were known by their dissents......one is called the great dissenter I believe.

Baker v. Nelson should have been controlling precedent in all the cases leading up to Obergefell....which......AGAIN, .....shows the idiocy of the lower federal courts in this matter.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I provided links numerous times in many threads to the legal documents, including the hearing transcript, in the case against Kim Davis.

You have a link to the hearing transcripts?

Could I humbly request that you post it again, I'd love to read it.

Thank you in advance.

WW

>>>>

0:15-cv-00044 #29

The above link contains the file (329 pages) regarding Defendant Kim Davis's Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction. The transcript of the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction is Davis's Exhibits A & B (pages 50-162; 163-246). The hearing was had over two days: July 13, 2015, and July 20, 2015.

Thank for the courtsey, it is much appreciated.

WW


>>>>

 

[Vigilante]

Wonder how the pond scum liberals would react if she had been a practicing muslim?..Who would they side with... the 2% of the BTGL voting public, or ones that have proven to KILL over such trivials as a Muhammad cartoon, and take their Queers seriously!

 

[Faun]

She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would have rolled over and let gays marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.

MLK stood for equality and inclusion

Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently

Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.

Nobody cares if they get married. Let them get married by people who want to marry them, and let them eat cake that people who want to bake cakes for them make for them.

Leave the majority of us alone. You fags can do your own thing, but leave us out of it. We aren't interested, we never have been interested.

Conservatives sure do care that they can marry. But it's over now and conservatives lost.

 

[boedicca]

She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would have rolled over and let gays marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.

MLK stood for equality and inclusion

Davis stands for discrimination and religious oppression of those who believe differently

Gays don't need to get married? Common stupidity and bigotry.

Surprise surprise, more hate speech from a liberal. We all have the same rights.Gays want...more. Because that's "equal". We all have the same rights. There isn't ANY oppression, accept in your mind. Life liberty, freedom of expression, we ALL have that. So were did this same sex marriage thing come from? You can LOVE who ever or how many other different folks and sexes real imagined or whatever. But marriage is, or should be reserved for those that CAN and DO reproduce, not sexual dysfunctional whinners with a bankroll and lawyers.

In real intolerant countries, Gays are executed.

In the U.S., gays are perfectly free to live their lifestyles, but the Prog loons insist on Participation and Elimination of Badthink. Sore Leftie losers are the new Inquisition of Intolerance

 

[Faun]

She violated the law, and there isn't any doubt. MLK did the same thing, too. I would probably would have rolled over and let gays marry, because I am weak. I still feel that the fed's law here is wrong and we need to stand against it, even if we or the law aren't perfect. MLK was a philander, Davis was married many times. Gays don't need to get married, common sense.

You don't have any common sense if you think it's up to you to "let gays marry".

Gays can do anything they want.

Except force people who see homo unions as sacrilege to endorse their marriages.

True, no one can force anyone to endorse homo marriages. But we sure can throw folks like Kim Davis in jail if they don't.