Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: introvert
That's not what I said.

You asked what the existing law was replaced with.

It does not need to be replaced with anything, it is as if the law never existed.

Not for nothing, this is my understanding as well.

The law has been "emptied out" of its force (voided). It cannot be en-forced.

It is a dead letter.

*sigh*

"This is a perfect example of a government authority (illegally) determining the rights for the individuals. "

Lets break this down class. . . . .


This is a perfect example = this phrase means it's a really good example

of a government authority = meaning the ladies office in question, you know, the office where she won't grant marriage licenses?

(illegally) = meaning not legally, also can mean unlawful, or "you're breaking the law"

determining the rights for the individuals. = Saying to the gay couples that you cannot get married because we know more, and/or are superior in thinking, and/or you don't know what you're doing but "we" do.


Sheesh people, I'd post this in fricking crayon if I could.

I think it should be noted, Kim Davis was not in that job by chance nor was it something something she started doing today. She worked for 24 years as deputy clerk under her mother. When her mother decided not to run again, Kim ran and won. And took her oath of office January of this year. She is Democrat party and not Republican.

Davis has worked as a clerk in Rowan County for more than 25 years. In May 2014 — while serving as chief deputy in the clerk’s office — she narrowly won the Democratic nomination for the top job by 23 votes.

Buzzfeed

a reply to: beezzer

Well if that is what you mean, then disregard what I said.

a reply to: matafuchs

We WANT the Supreme Court to use the constitution to interpret the laws. They have actually used the 2nd amendment to strike down some gun restriction laws in the past.

They used the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment (and due process clause) to rule that state laws banning same sex marriage are unconstitutional. They did exactly what they are supposed to do.

Ms. Davis was held in contempt because the judge ruled against her in the lawsuit that was filed, and she refused to follow the judge's court order. The judge made his ruling based on the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling.

Look at interracial marriage as an example. There isn't a Federal law that states interracial marriage is legal, but the S.C. ruled that laws banning it are unconstitutional, so states are now not allowed to ban it. If a county clerk were to try to ban interracial marriage today, the couple could sue and a court would rule in favor of the couple, because of the S.C. ruling in 1967. The judge would then order the county clerk to give out interracial marriage licenses and if they refused, they could be held in contempt. Get it?

a reply to: beezzer

Except is was ONE rogue lady acting AGAINST/COUNTER TO the governments laws and wishes.
It's a terrible, terrible example.

Marriage is a legal contract between two people; in a sense, it creates a kind of de facto "corporation."

It carries legal form, legal requirements, and it must be dissolved legally.

Notice the repetition of the word legal?

That's why government is "involved."

If marriage were merely a bond in the Church, no State recognition would be necessary.

originally posted by: Annee
BREAKING: Attorney for jailed Kentucky clerk says same-sex marriage licenses issued Friday are void

www.chicoer.com...

There must be something in place to make up for a Clerk who would be incapacitated or something?

Like a Deputy Clerk to act in the absence of the Clerk?

Welcome to Rowan County

originally posted by: stargatetravels
a reply to: beezzer

Except is was ONE rogue lady acting AGAINST/COUNTER TO the governments laws and wishes.
It's a terrible, terrible example.

That's your opinion.

Christ Almighty!

I might just post that the sky is blue so you leftists can run around screaming that's is green instead!

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: flyandi

This lady is being misused by outside interests according to an agenda that she barely understands.

Her life has changed forever.

I watched the CNN Video of her denying the license...a second time...with a dozen news cameras in the room etc.

She chose the spotlight and attention.

Unfortunately she hadn't read the recent terms and conditions of the "GoFundMe" site that has made so many conservative cause martyrs rich recently

They now forbid : Campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts.
www.addictinginfo.org...

Prior to that you had..
Indiana Anti Gay Law Makes Homophobic Pizza Shop $800,000 (GoFundMe)
newmediarockstars.com...

Or even more repugnant...Darren Wilson raked in almost 500K on GoFundME for shooting Michael Brown
There had been two major GoFundMe pages raising money for Darren Wilson, who fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown earlier this month. Combined, the fundraisers had pulled in almost $500,000.
www.huffingtonpost.com...

She no doubt was hoping for a payday in the spotlight...She gave her speech with a snarky look on her face telling the men she wouldn't give them a marriage license...all while over a dozen news crews packed the room.


Having a hard time casting her as the naïve Christian woman caught in the spotlight.

a reply to: beezzer

You're gonna use this same argument for the government penalizing the baker for refusing to bake a cake for the gay wedding aren't you?

You were given the benefit of the doubt by some here, but I see where you are going with this.

a reply to: xuenchen

I just saw on TV the local news talking about it. The couples attorney are going to file today regarding all that. They've got to be very careful how they proceed from here on out. Kim Davis hasn't been incapacitated or deemed unfit and officially taken from her post. So even behind bars, she's still the authority for the county. Contempt of Court isn't really a charge, so not even that counts.

So hopefully they'll go about this very carefully.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: stargatetravels
a reply to: beezzer

Except is was ONE rogue lady acting AGAINST/COUNTER TO the governments laws and wishes.
It's a terrible, terrible example.

That's your opinion.

Christ Almighty!

I might just post that the sky is blue so you leftists can run around screaming that's is green instead!

No it's not an opinion - it's a fact.
Google what a fact is and then an opinion.
It's a fact that she acted against the wishes of the government - they didn't instruct or order to not serve the gays SHE decided that.

Are you just being purposely difficult or are you having difficulty understanding this.
I'm not sure.

So for you this one woman who literally broke the law and went AGAINST the government, actually embodies and personifies the government.
Can you break that down - maybe use your crayon this time.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: beezzer

You're gonna use this same argument for the government penalizing the baker for refusing to bake a cake for the gay wedding aren't you?

You were given the benefit of the doubt by some here, but I see where you are going with this.

If I were going to be a prick, I would have done so, pages ago.

*shakes head*

Most people are afraid of the boogey-man in the closet, but you guys must see me under the bed.

*laughs*

a reply to: harvestdog

The MSM seems to be ignoring a few things.

Can't imagine why.

winky wink

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: beezzer

You're gonna use this same argument for the government penalizing the baker for refusing to bake a cake for the gay wedding aren't you?

Off topic...but that baker who refused to make the cake for the gay couple because it contradicts the bible's teaching?

He agreed to make a cake for a dog wedding - two dogs getting married..you can't make this stuff up.

a reply to: stargatetravels

"This is a perfect example of a government authority (illegally) determining the rights for the individuals. "


Are you having trouble with what illegal means?

Read the sentence.

Now read this sentence.

"This is a perfect example of a government authority determining the rights for the individuals. "


Is that what I said?


*shakes head at the insanity*

a reply to: Gryphon66

I agree with you. I'm not sure where the disagreement or misunderstanding is, really.

a reply to: beezzer

Well, at least you're willing to be clear, without being condescending. ... ...

I wasn't sure what you meant because you quoted Annie's post about something Davis' lawyer said... If people are misunderstanding you (as has happened several times IN THIS THREAD TODAY), perhaps you could consider giving a BIT more clarity.

Edit:

originally posted by: beezzer
I might just post that the sky is blue so you leftists can run around screaming that's is green instead!

Ah! I get it now. It's about making lefty look stupid. Thank you for THAT clarity! I got it now.

a reply to: beezzer

Do you like being gathered in with all the nutjob Christians (Westboro, Pat Robertson, et. al.) Beezzer?

Yeah, most of us feel the same way about being grouped as "leftists" while you pretend we're all just alike that we all believe exactly the same thing, etc. etc.

I'm not afraid of dust bunnies under the bed.

a reply to: Indigo5

/Start Sarcasm- But puppies are cute and loveable, "The Gays" are sinful and "icky". /end sarcasm