Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

a reply to: xuenchen

You're going to make this a partisan issue now?

We can always count on you to add to the conversation.

So, let's see ... following your usual logic, this means that the Democratic Party is against marriage equality, right?

originally posted by: matafuchs
Then why are they skipping the 1st Amendment and cherry picking 14? That was my point.

They aren't. Kim Davis is free to exercise her religion. She is free to go to church, sing, praise the Lord, pray, etc. Her religious freedom is in tact. She has job responsibilities, though. If she can't do her job, she should step down.

The 15th Amendment was about race,citizenship and equal protection under the law. Not sexuality.

That's the 14th amendment, but it also says:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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

States can't offer marriage law to some (straight people) and not to others (gay people).

a reply to: matafuchs

They aren't skipping the 1st. You have religious freedom until it impedes on someone else's right. The 14th says that citizens are to have equal protection under the law. Are gay people citizens? Yes. Is telling a certain group of citizens that they can't get a legal marriage license treating them equally to all the other citizens? No. Then those laws go against the constitution.

There is also due process. Excluding gays from getting legally married is not giving them due process.

The SCOTUS gave a ruling. Not a law, but a ruling that certain laws were unconstitutional for citizens. That's what they are supposed to do. We can't just ignore the ruling (and not expect to suffer consequences). That's not how it works.

a reply to: DelMarvel

A look at Liberty Counsel — the Christian legal group defending Kentucky clerk Kim Davis

Is Kentucky’s Infamous Anti-Gay Clerk Getting Taken for a Ride by Her Lawyers?

Liberty Counsel

Jindal, Huckabee And Santorum To Join Far-Right Activists At Liberty Counsel's 'The Awakening'

Check into Alliance Defending Freedom also. They are the other Anti-Gay Christian Non-Profit sack of BS lawyers who are on this crusade as well.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Probably a big gubment flopidy flop too.

a reply to: olaru12

They need to leave her in there. I'll be pissed if they let her out. I'm sure we'll be listening to her pitiful story on every Right Wing Hack Radio and TV show there is.

I know David Barton and Glen Beck have been supporting her. Huckabee actually said he supported her choice to defy the Supreme Court as well, which coming from a Presidential candidate is pretty extreme. Pretty stupid as well.

Then again maybe we should go with his advice and everyone just ignore whatever laws we don't like. I know there are a few that I'd like to just ignore because "I believe" I don't have to follow the law.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

She's done nothing except become another martyr for the persecution-complex of the Christian Right. Hopefully they will put someone in the position that will actually do their job.

Except, she's a Democrat.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Klassified

Yeah. More and more right wing religious extremists in government AND legal jobs, deciding whose beliefs and rights are more important than others'... and virtual theocracy, here we come!

It's "creepy" all right! To think that our republic could be systematically infiltrated and taken over by impassioned control freaks is about the creepiest thing I can think of!

I was just pondering the possibility of a connection between the law firm representing Davis, and the Dominionists. Wouldn't surprise me in the least at this point. Even if Davis gets the boot from her office. This isn't over by a long shot.

ETA: And by the way. You have the patience of Job. How many times have you explained the same thing over and over in this thread. I tip my hat to you.

originally posted by: poncho1982

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

She's done nothing except become another martyr for the persecution-complex of the Christian Right. Hopefully they will put someone in the position that will actually do their job.

Except, she's a Democrat.

no she's a DINO and about to experience a cultural extinction as soon as the Christian Right uses her up.

originally posted by: poncho1982
Except, she's a Democrat.

Her religious affiliation is hardly relevant. She's clearly not in line with Democrats on these issues. She's a patsy for the right. She ran as a Democrat, but seems more like a Republican. Her conversion to Christianity is recent. Maybe she changed platforms, too?

a reply to: Klassified

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: mOjOm
Huckabee actually said he supported her choice to defy the Supreme Court as well, which coming from a Presidential candidate is pretty extreme. Pretty stupid as well.

All but TWO of the GOP candidates support her! Only Carly Fiorina and Lindsay Graham say she should follow the law or step down.

a reply to: Gryphon66

What law are they protected from? Again, there is no law. This is 5 of 9 people stating a law should be read a specific way to follow a specific agenda. There is no law to follow to get married. There is not even a right. It is a choice.

The 1st Amendment prohibits the establishment or endorsement of religion by government but it also protects your right to belief and that the government should pass no law to restrict your religious freedoms.

Free Exercise and the Establishment clause were created to keep big religion out of politics as it had grown in England and to allow one to have a belief system that is not affected by the Federal government. Looks like we are not following the principles held by past generations but attempting to rewrite for a small group at the expense of religion.

I disagree with the government having control of marriages at all period .

400 years ago in western society a church started licensing marriages then the governments got involved. Its always been seen as a contract between 2 people . Having a government to license marriages is Following in the foot steps of a church ?

Why is the government even involved ? Great tracking and control mechanism .

There were periods of history where the licensing was used to keep whites and coloreds from marriages or farther back giving a brides wedding night to the governing duke or lord or the royals household as a way of diminishing uprisings by first born was norman /english or english/scottish .

The LBGT fight and won the right to be licensed.

Traditional marriages in some native cultures was a big ceremony and divorce was simple as putting the mans stuff outside the wigwam teepee,hogan ect. Now buy license to get married , to get divorced both hire lawyers see a judge pay court costs filling fees. Whos winning the people or the lawyers and government ?

If she is held in contempt for not fulfilling her duties as prescribed by law. What about other governmental elected officials not upholding their duties.

Just some thoughts have fun with the irony and hypocrisy of it all.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Oh, and just for the record, when I hear that we should gut the power of the Federal government and rely on local and State government, THIS is just the kind of nightmare scenario that I have in mind when I try to remind that is a bad idea.

Preach on brother, you took the words right out of my mouth. I have expressed this very feeling numerous times on this site, state and local governments have more capability to affect my daily life than the feds can even imagine.

There is a lot to debate about just how far judicially determined so-called rights go as there is almost no limit to the permutations available.

I myself am a firm believer in the 10th Amendments limits on Federal Power,

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

That's a very cut, dried and specific statement with no wiggle room for interpretation at all yet the courts seen to invent reason after reason for violating that CLEAR language about unenumerated rights.

Then we have the first amendment which states,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Notice its very clear that the Federal Government is prohibited from making law positively or negatively regarding religion, plainly it means butt out! you have no say!

Then we have the ninth amendment which says,

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The ninth taken completely out of context and standing alone all by itself regardless of other amendments can be taken ambiguously by agenda driven opinion. I say this because the Constitution is a negative document regarding Federal power and is a limiting document rather than an enabling document for the Federal Government. Notice the clear notation of retained rights of the people. The Ninth prevents usurpation of unenumerated rights by the Federal Government - it in no way infers the Federal Government the right to affirm new (invent) rights either.

And finally for my point of debate we have the Declaration of Independence which in part states,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The DofI is totally misused by newly invented rights activists and believers by attempting to trump the Constitution that is the agreed legal binding document on what the Federal government is allowed to do or prohibited from doing.

With all the above in mind its clear the Federal Judicial system has taken an anti-constitutional dictatorial path that denies rights enumerated in the Constitution in deciding it even has the power to rule on gay marriage much less make legal determinations without running afoul of other amendments or in this case multiple amendments thereby trampling the rights of many, sometimes like in this case resulting in the loss of freedom by jailing.

To show just how ridiculous the jailing of Kim Davis for not issuing gay marriage licenses using the theory that the Federal Government has the right to compel her based upon the invention of that right by the court system then using that exact same logic,

I can sue and win a case where the county clerk denied a marriage license for my 10 year old daughter to marry a 40 year old man, further I should be able to have that clerk jailed if they refuse based on their personal religious beliefs.

Don't scoff or claim strawman because 10 years ago Federally sanctioned Gay marriage was thought impossible and even more recently than that was opposed by no one other than Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

On the other hand to be fair I stand completely in favor of individual states determining their own laws and fate per the Constitution.

If a state wants gay marriage by legislatively passed law that's the voters prerogative
If they want plural marriage so be it.
If they want child marriage that's their issue so long as its not by judicial fiat and dictate. (I'd move out quickly)

The Federal Government however needs to bugger off on issues not in its purveyance nor constitutional authority to make determinations.

Doing otherwise is feeding the beast, a beast one day seemingly in your interest, another day eating you alive.

The handing over of power to the Feds is my issue and one I believe is ultimately far more dangerous than a clerk who won't issue marriage licenses or gay marriage.

Why can't all you folks work through your state legislatures instead of going the judicial route - oh I guess a plurality of voters disagrees with your position - well change that opinion rather than endangering our Republic!

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician

originally posted by: dawnstar
but well she was just obeying what the bible said when she stoned the kid, how was that wrong??

or are we picking and chosing what we wish to believe that the bible says?

but I of agree with EternalSolace. it wouldn't have hurt to have the legislators brought in to resolve this.

Not picking and choosing anything. There are two parts to the Bible. The Old Testament and the New Testament. The "New" Testament is a revision of the Old one, and the Bible started anew. Jesus was the "new" covenant,what you speak of is in the Old Testament.

Jesus said that the laws of Moses was to be followed as well.

That's cool, I am going to go out on a limb here and say Moses, most likley never stoned anyone in the face...or God would not have chosen him. That would be just another common thug.

Are you joking? If not see Numbers 15:

While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 36So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses.

Ok fine, you got me. I am certainly no preacher so I never saw that part...I did say "I am going to go out on a limb here and say Moses, "most likely" never stoned anyone in the face". That statement does suggest that I was just guessing. Maybe that's why God didn't choose me. That said, if God would have this done to a man for just collecting wood on the Sabbath, what would he do to two gay people who got married?

What about something these hypocrite conservatives always talk bout
THE RULE OF LAW

Their like selfish children

Their way or they start crying like little babies

Poor things

They don't like my religion

originally posted by: matafuchs


The 1st Amendment prohibits the establishment or endorsement of religion by government but it also protects your right to belief and that the government should pass no law to restrict your religious freedoms.

So you are one of those who think any American followers of ISIS should be exempt from the law against murder if they decide to chop off the heads of non-believers? Religious freedom and all...

Free Exercise and the Establishment clause were created to keep big religion out of politics as it had grown in England and to allow one to have a belief system that is not affected by the Federal government. Looks like we are not following the principles held by past generations but attempting to rewrite for a small group at the expense of religion.

Exactly. We don't want a theocracy where one government worker's religious belief rules their county. And by not allowing any same sex licenses to be issued, a theocracy is exactly what she is trying to establish.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

It's crazy to think that all these Pres. Candidates would actually be publicly suggesting that defying the Supreme Court is a good thing. The moment they said anything like that should have been the end of their run. Which it's not exactly doing well for them in the polling which is good. But that they could say something like that and not have everyone in this country be upset is a problem.

Just look at what they support and don't support. They want to increase the Church presence everywhere from your kids school to the highest office of Gov. Plus cut public school funding, cut social programs, remove science, remove corporate regulation and environmental regulations and now defy the courts in support of their own personal beliefs.

Can you imagine if all of those things actually happened??? We would instantly be in the Dark Ages again and being led and controlled by a Tyrannical Self Serving Theocratic Monarchy using "Beliefs" as our compass and measure of law with a populous destined to a long life of ignorance and worshiping mythology.

It's like a f**king nightmare and to watch so many cheer it on like it's the best thing in the world makes me want to back up slowly, exiting the room, out the door and run screaming into the night.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66

What law are they protected from? Again, there is no law. This is 5 of 9 people stating a law should be read a specific way to follow a specific agenda. There is no law to follow to get married. There is not even a right. It is a choice.

The 1st Amendment prohibits the establishment or endorsement of religion by government but it also protects your right to belief and that the government should pass no law to restrict your religious freedoms.

Free Exercise and the Establishment clause were created to keep big religion out of politics as it had grown in England and to allow one to have a belief system that is not affected by the Federal government. Looks like we are not following the principles held by past generations but attempting to rewrite for a small group at the expense of religion.

Her ability to practice her religion has not been infringed up, she is free to do what she will in her personal life, and apparently has, 3 divorces, children born out of wedlock, adultery. However she attempted to deny rights to others that are protected under the 14th amendment, are facts too difficult for you to understand?