Marriage clerk targeted by gays revolts

[koshergrl]

This is fucking ridiculous. She has to follow the law. She does not, as a court clerk, get to make or interpret the law. I am not crazy about homos getting hitched either. But if you start supporting shit like this then you undermine the rule of law.

Odium doesn't believe in the rule of law. He believes in the Rule of Bitch, and Bigots...

There is no law. There is an OPINION of 5 people. That's it. The STATES made LAWS and were overruled with an OPINION which holds NO WATER.

NOMblog: Kim Davis is Why We Must Fight

Indeed we must! I am no christian but support religious freedom!

If Kim Davis decided one day that her religion told her to stop marrying Jews....would you call her an anti-Semite?

Nope.

If Kim Davis decided one day that her religion told her to stop marrying Jews....would you call her an anti-Semite?

Odium hates Jews too. Maybe instead of Jews try white people. That'll really get him excited.

Its up to her who she marries white,black,asian,jew,straight idc....

The opinion of five is the law here, dumbass. The highest law in the land...

Opinions are just that. Opinions. State legislatures and Congress make laws. the SC issues OPINIONS not facts.

It's the law. As distasteful as Supreme Court decisions can be sometimes, and they can be, the holding in a particular is the law of the land. I believe that the real power in our republic ought to lie with Congress, as they are the closest link to the people. I also believe that when courts have to decide whether a law runs afoul of the constitution they ought to presume that it is constitutional and only overturn the will of the people in extraordinary circumstances when it is clear that a law contravenes the constitution or exceeds the scope of Article II (ie, when exceeds its authority).

That being said, you obviously cannot pick and choose what legal decisions you are going to follow or not follow, as you are upsetting checks and balances by usurping Article III powers of the federal courts, undermining rule of law and public confidence, as there will be no certainty of law if we can just cast aside a court decision we do not like.

However, the foregoing is academic. This clerk is a public functionary and she is not allowing for equal protection as required under current and valid 14th Amendment jurisprudence. Yes, she has rights too. However, she does not get to deny others their rights just to exercise her own.

This is not even a close call. It is pretty fucking stupid that there is a conversation being held over this. If she refuses the court order she will be in contempt of the federal court order. She may even be removed, which will create a real constitutional clusterfuck if a federal judge attempts to somehow strip the power from a duly elected state official.

If she is sincere in her position, then she should do the decent thing and resign.

All of the clerks are with her, as are the people who elected her. People are sick of judges arbitrarily leveling crap laws against us.

 

[bodecea]

How many topics about this sanctimonious hypocrite do we need?

Come on G...just because she's four times divorced...

Actually, 3 times divorced...on her fourth marriage. I wonder if she can't tell a husband without a program.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Odium doesn't believe in the rule of law. He believes in the Rule of Bitch, and Bigots...

There is no law. There is an OPINION of 5 people. That's it. The STATES made LAWS and were overruled with an OPINION which holds NO WATER.

If Kim Davis decided one day that her religion told her to stop marrying Jews....would you call her an anti-Semite?

Nope.

Odium hates Jews too. Maybe instead of Jews try white people. That'll really get him excited.

Its up to her who she marries white,black,asian,jew,straight idc....

The opinion of five is the law here, dumbass. The highest law in the land...

Opinions are just that. Opinions. State legislatures and Congress make laws. the SC issues OPINIONS not facts.

It's the law. As distasteful as Supreme Court decisions can be sometimes, and they can be, the holding in a particular is the law of the land. I believe that the real power in our republic ought to lie with Congress, as they are the closest link to the people. I also believe that when courts have to decide whether a law runs afoul of the constitution they ought to presume that it is constitutional and only overturn the will of the people in extraordinary circumstances when it is clear that a law contravenes the constitution or exceeds the scope of Article II (ie, when exceeds its authority).

That being said, you obviously cannot pick and choose what legal decisions you are going to follow or not follow, as you are upsetting checks and balances by usurping Article III powers of the federal courts, undermining rule of law and public confidence, as there will be no certainty of law if we can just cast aside a court decision we do not like.

However, the foregoing is academic. This clerk is a public functionary and she is not allowing for equal protection as required under current and valid 14th Amendment jurisprudence. Yes, she has rights too. However, she does not get to deny others their rights just to exercise her own.

This is not even a close call. It is pretty fucking stupid that there is a conversation being held over this. If she refuses the court order she will be in contempt of the federal court order. She may even be removed, which will create a real constitutional clusterfuck if a federal judge attempts to somehow strip the power from a duly elected state official.

If she is sincere in her position, then she should do the decent thing and resign.

All of the clerks are with her, as are the people who elected her. People are sick of judges arbitrarily leveling crap laws against us.

Soon they'll all be out of a job

 

[Moonglow]

She refuses to give out any marriage licenses, including same sex and heterosexuals....Thursday will be here day in court for reckoning and fines will be imposed for contempt....I hope the tax payers enjoy paying for her obstinate 'tude........

Hopefully they fine her enough to get that money back.

She makes 80k a year to deny people their ability to utilize her office....

 

[bodecea]

Odium doesn't believe in the rule of law. He believes in the Rule of Bitch, and Bigots...

There is no law. There is an OPINION of 5 people. That's it. The STATES made LAWS and were overruled with an OPINION which holds NO WATER.

If Kim Davis decided one day that her religion told her to stop marrying Jews....would you call her an anti-Semite?

Nope.

Odium hates Jews too. Maybe instead of Jews try white people. That'll really get him excited.

Its up to her who she marries white,black,asian,jew,straight idc....

The opinion of five is the law here, dumbass. The highest law in the land...

Opinions are just that. Opinions. State legislatures and Congress make laws. the SC issues OPINIONS not facts.

It's the law. As distasteful as Supreme Court decisions can be sometimes, and they can be, the holding in a particular is the law of the land. I believe that the real power in our republic ought to lie with Congress, as they are the closest link to the people. I also believe that when courts have to decide whether a law runs afoul of the constitution they ought to presume that it is constitutional and only overturn the will of the people in extraordinary circumstances when it is clear that a law contravenes the constitution or exceeds the scope of Article II (ie, when exceeds its authority).

That being said, you obviously cannot pick and choose what legal decisions you are going to follow or not follow, as you are upsetting checks and balances by usurping Article III powers of the federal courts, undermining rule of law and public confidence, as there will be no certainty of law if we can just cast aside a court decision we do not like.

However, the foregoing is academic. This clerk is a public functionary and she is not allowing for equal protection as required under current and valid 14th Amendment jurisprudence. Yes, she has rights too. However, she does not get to deny others their rights just to exercise her own.

This is not even a close call. It is pretty fucking stupid that there is a conversation being held over this. If she refuses the court order she will be in contempt of the federal court order. She may even be removed, which will create a real constitutional clusterfuck if a federal judge attempts to somehow strip the power from a duly elected state official.

If she is sincere in her position, then she should do the decent thing and resign.

All of the clerks are with her, as are the people who elected her. People are sick of judges arbitrarily leveling crap laws against us.

She is their boss....do you think they are willing to cross their boss publically?

 

[Moonglow]

How many topics about this sanctimonious hypocrite do we need?

Come on G...just because she's four times divorced...

Actually, 3 times divorced...on her fourth marriage. I wonder if she can't tell a husband without a program.

She can in the dark...heh-heh, knows every vein...

 

[koshergrl]

"A fellow Kentucky clerk, Casey Davis, has protested alongside Kim Davis and insisted Tuesday on CNN's "New Day" that "we've not tried to prevent" same-sex marriages, and "we've only tried to exercise our First Amendment rights."
"Casey Davis said gay couples could go to another county to get married when a county clerk objects due to religious beliefs."

In other words, they aren't being prevented from getting married. They are being prevented from forcing people with religious objections to marry them.

Look up the word "force" now.

ACLU wants Kim Davis in contempt of court - CNNPolitics.com

 

[koshergrl]

They could have gone to Lexington. They could have gone to West Liberty. No, they want to make a stink. They're hypocrites.

They different-sex and same-sex couples are long time residents of that county and shouldn't have to go elsewhere.

The only hypocrite in this saga is Ms. Davis who is on her 4th husband.


>>>>

sorry, they don't have the *right* to be married by Christians. Fuck the fags.

 

[Seawytch]

I wanted to get married in the county where I grew up and live currently. I shouldn't have to go to another county because the clerk is a bigot. Better she gets a job she can perform.

First off, opposing homofascism in principle is not bigoted. The shoe is completely on the opposite foot. The only bigotry is in the homofascism.
And West Liberty is very near Morehead. I think those homos wanted Morehead because of the name.

Sorry Skippy, but denying marriage licenses to gay couples is bigoted.

I pay taxes in the county where I live. The clerk in that county does her job or she should lose that job.

If a Muslim DMV supervisor decided to stop issuing driver's licenses to women, and ordered his office to stop issuing them, I'm sure you'd be just as supportive, right?

Opposing bigoted licences is anything but bigotry. As for Muslims denying homo marriage licenses, I'd be curious for the amusement factor.

How is my marriage license bigoted?

That's not what I said. I said if a Muslim DMV supervisor was refusing to issue drivers licenses and ordered his office not to issue them to women. You support that, right? "Religious freedom" and all, right?

Driving isn't a right. It's a privilege that must be earned because it involves others. Marriage licences are also not a right because they involve others. Personal irrelevant behavior doesn't involve others so there is no need to grant such a license.

That didn't answer my question but deflected from it.

Marriage actually is a right...so sayeth the SCOTUS many, many times.

Yes or no, would you support a Muslim DMV supervisor ordering his clerks not to issue licenses to women?

 

[bodecea]

They could have gone to Lexington. They could have gone to West Liberty. No, they want to make a stink. They're hypocrites.

They different-sex and same-sex couples are long time residents of that county and shouldn't have to go elsewhere.

The only hypocrite in this saga is Ms. Davis who is on her 4th husband.


>>>>

sorry, they don't have the *right* to be married by Christians. Fuck the fags.

Don't care about religions of anyone who has a government job....they can keep their religion to themselves.

 

[TheOldSchool]

"A fellow Kentucky clerk, Casey Davis, has protested alongside Kim Davis and insisted Tuesday on CNN's "New Day" that "we've not tried to prevent" same-sex marriages, and "we've only tried to exercise our First Amendment rights."
"Casey Davis said gay couples could go to another county to get married when a county clerk objects due to religious beliefs."

In other words, they aren't being prevented from getting married. They are being prevented from forcing people with religious objections to marry them.

Look up the word "force" now.

ACLU wants Kim Davis in contempt of court - CNNPolitics.com

I wonder if there will be a party when they're all sent to the unemployment line.

 

[bodecea]

"A fellow Kentucky clerk, Casey Davis, has protested alongside Kim Davis and insisted Tuesday on CNN's "New Day" that "we've not tried to prevent" same-sex marriages, and "we've only tried to exercise our First Amendment rights."
"Casey Davis said gay couples could go to another county to get married when a county clerk objects due to religious beliefs."

In other words, they aren't being prevented from getting married. They are being prevented from forcing people with religious objections to marry them.

Look up the word "force" now.

ACLU wants Kim Davis in contempt of court - CNNPolitics.com

I wonder if there will be a party when they're all sent to the unemployment line.

Welfare...I bet they'll apply for welfare and food stamps.

 

[TheOldSchool]

They could have gone to Lexington. They could have gone to West Liberty. No, they want to make a stink. They're hypocrites.

They different-sex and same-sex couples are long time residents of that county and shouldn't have to go elsewhere.

The only hypocrite in this saga is Ms. Davis who is on her 4th husband.


>>>>

sorry, they don't have the *right* to be married by Christians. Fuck the fags.

Sorta like how government clerks don't have the right to deny them a marriage license?

 

[TheOldSchool]

"A fellow Kentucky clerk, Casey Davis, has protested alongside Kim Davis and insisted Tuesday on CNN's "New Day" that "we've not tried to prevent" same-sex marriages, and "we've only tried to exercise our First Amendment rights."
"Casey Davis said gay couples could go to another county to get married when a county clerk objects due to religious beliefs."

In other words, they aren't being prevented from getting married. They are being prevented from forcing people with religious objections to marry them.

Look up the word "force" now.

ACLU wants Kim Davis in contempt of court - CNNPolitics.com

I wonder if there will be a party when they're all sent to the unemployment line.

Welfare...I bet they'll apply for welfare and food stamps.

Good thing they can fall back on Obamacare!

 

[playtime]

Never know. At least 1 lawyer seems to think she has a case worth filing. Good luck to her.

She has a lawyer that is looking for her money.

 

[playtime]

Never know. At least 1 lawyer seems to think she has a case worth filing. Good luck to her.

Not one lawyer- a Conservative activist group.

Its actually a religious rights group so its a large group of lawyers who think they have a case and they do against the governor. He can't pick and choose what laws get enforced.

I guess I'm looking at this going... If you're a Christian Doctor, you don't become an abortionist.

Retire if it's "against your religion" to do the job.

Why? EVERY other county in Ky was giving the licenses out the queer can go there.

There's no such thing as having religious beliefs in a government job.

 

[koshergrl]

There is no law. There is an OPINION of 5 people. That's it. The STATES made LAWS and were overruled with an OPINION which holds NO WATER.
Nope.
Its up to her who she marries white,black,asian,jew,straight idc....

The opinion of five is the law here, dumbass. The highest law in the land...

Opinions are just that. Opinions. State legislatures and Congress make laws. the SC issues OPINIONS not facts.

It's the law. As distasteful as Supreme Court decisions can be sometimes, and they can be, the holding in a particular is the law of the land. I believe that the real power in our republic ought to lie with Congress, as they are the closest link to the people. I also believe that when courts have to decide whether a law runs afoul of the constitution they ought to presume that it is constitutional and only overturn the will of the people in extraordinary circumstances when it is clear that a law contravenes the constitution or exceeds the scope of Article II (ie, when exceeds its authority).

That being said, you obviously cannot pick and choose what legal decisions you are going to follow or not follow, as you are upsetting checks and balances by usurping Article III powers of the federal courts, undermining rule of law and public confidence, as there will be no certainty of law if we can just cast aside a court decision we do not like.

However, the foregoing is academic. This clerk is a public functionary and she is not allowing for equal protection as required under current and valid 14th Amendment jurisprudence. Yes, she has rights too. However, she does not get to deny others their rights just to exercise her own.

This is not even a close call. It is pretty fucking stupid that there is a conversation being held over this. If she refuses the court order she will be in contempt of the federal court order. She may even be removed, which will create a real constitutional clusterfuck if a federal judge attempts to somehow strip the power from a duly elected state official.

If she is sincere in her position, then she should do the decent thing and resign.

All of the clerks are with her, as are the people who elected her. People are sick of judges arbitrarily leveling crap laws against us.

Soon they'll all be out of a job

By then the Muslims and illegals will be taking out the fags, so soon enough it's going to be a non issue anyway.

 

[koshergrl]

They could have gone to Lexington. They could have gone to West Liberty. No, they want to make a stink. They're hypocrites.

They different-sex and same-sex couples are long time residents of that county and shouldn't have to go elsewhere.

The only hypocrite in this saga is Ms. Davis who is on her 4th husband.


>>>>

sorry, they don't have the *right* to be married by Christians. Fuck the fags.

Don't care about religions of anyone who has a government job....they can keep their religion to themselves.

They don't have to.

I love America. Unlike some.

 

[koshergrl]

Never know. At least 1 lawyer seems to think she has a case worth filing. Good luck to her.

Not one lawyer- a Conservative activist group.

Its actually a religious rights group so its a large group of lawyers who think they have a case and they do against the governor. He can't pick and choose what laws get enforced.

I guess I'm looking at this going... If you're a Christian Doctor, you don't become an abortionist.

Retire if it's "against your religion" to do the job.

Why? EVERY other county in Ky was giving the licenses out the queer can go there.

There's no such thing as having religious beliefs in a government job.

Sure there is. Unless you live in China, North Korea or Nazi Germany.

 

[TheOldSchool]

The opinion of five is the law here, dumbass. The highest law in the land...

Opinions are just that. Opinions. State legislatures and Congress make laws. the SC issues OPINIONS not facts.

It's the law. As distasteful as Supreme Court decisions can be sometimes, and they can be, the holding in a particular is the law of the land. I believe that the real power in our republic ought to lie with Congress, as they are the closest link to the people. I also believe that when courts have to decide whether a law runs afoul of the constitution they ought to presume that it is constitutional and only overturn the will of the people in extraordinary circumstances when it is clear that a law contravenes the constitution or exceeds the scope of Article II (ie, when exceeds its authority).

That being said, you obviously cannot pick and choose what legal decisions you are going to follow or not follow, as you are upsetting checks and balances by usurping Article III powers of the federal courts, undermining rule of law and public confidence, as there will be no certainty of law if we can just cast aside a court decision we do not like.

However, the foregoing is academic. This clerk is a public functionary and she is not allowing for equal protection as required under current and valid 14th Amendment jurisprudence. Yes, she has rights too. However, she does not get to deny others their rights just to exercise her own.

This is not even a close call. It is pretty fucking stupid that there is a conversation being held over this. If she refuses the court order she will be in contempt of the federal court order. She may even be removed, which will create a real constitutional clusterfuck if a federal judge attempts to somehow strip the power from a duly elected state official.

If she is sincere in her position, then she should do the decent thing and resign.

All of the clerks are with her, as are the people who elected her. People are sick of judges arbitrarily leveling crap laws against us.

Soon they'll all be out of a job

By then the Muslims and illegals will be taking out the fags, so soon enough it's going to be a non issue anyway.

It's already a non-issue. You and this clerk, who has wiped her ass with the "sanctity" of marriage 3 times, are just in denial.