Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Two observations:

1) It apparently is okay for elected officials to ignore the laws when they have the liberal ideology and social lemming media behind them. No one went to jail for refusing to enforce DOMA, DADT, Immigration Laws, etc.

2) SCOTUS rulings do not rewrite state laws. Judges are neither legislators nor executives. They can strike down state marriage laws, as was done with recent rulings (erroneously and via pure judicial activism, but there is no easy recourse against that.) Has Kentucky passed new marriage or civil union laws yet? What law is this country clerk being told to enforce?

She wasn't told to enforce anything, she was told to do her job and issue marriage licenses to any two people that were entitled to be married. This included same sex couples as the one man - one woman kentucky law had been ruled unconstitutional.

I'm not disputing that she is supposed to fulfill the law. I'm asking what law didn't she fulfill? Did the Kentucky legislature pass, and the Kentucky governor sign a law that allowed same sex union licenses?

No the US Supreme Court declared their law unconstitutional, therefore it became null and void instantly, so thus did not exist.

Totally agree!! The SCOTUS directed her to follow their ruling, and she did not do it, based on her personal beliefs. I don't give a crappola what her beliefs are....but as a taxpayer funded, elected official she is obligated to follow the law!

On a personal note....I think she's a freak....I mean really...marriages, divorces, affairs....and yet she stands in judgement of people with long term relationships getting married? She's just messed up. The logic doesn't even make sense.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
So feel free to continue handing out your version of freedoms to only those you decide you agree with, and withhold it from those you don't. It makes you special.

You mean the freedom to marry who you choose??? Or the freedom to go about your day like a normal person without having some zealot cast judgements upon you because they believe in fairy tales???

You mean those kinds of freedoms. Because that would be people like you who are withholding those freedoms. The rest of us learned to share back when we were still kiddies in the sand box. It's you who wants to be treated special. All because you "Believe" you're special. Well, I believe you're wrong. In fact, you're about as special and unique as the other Religious Fanatics out there cutting off heads and throwing gays off of buildings. A real special kind of dumb.

Apparently freedoms only count when you agree with them..

From both sides.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: DelMarvel
a reply to: yuppa

The whole New Covenant/Old Covenent thing becomes a gimmick for "salad bar" style Christians.

Whatever they don't want to follow in the old Testament is "old Covenent."

Whatever they want to cite is still the Word of God.

You see all the usual Old Testament quotes on the posters carried by the anti-gay contingent.

Gee imagine that, christians calling other christians hypocrites


If you read the Bible correctly it SPECIFICALLY STATES WHO THE OT APPLIES TO. Its not pick what you want. The ones posting old testament need to stop and actually understand what they are reading. They are being hypocrites.

Your man made religious books are funny... Especially funny when you cherry pick what is right or wrong..

Not just christians but all..

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Two observations:

1) It apparently is okay for elected officials to ignore the laws when they have the liberal ideology and social lemming media behind them. No one went to jail for refusing to enforce DOMA, DADT, Immigration Laws, etc.

2) SCOTUS rulings do not rewrite state laws. Judges are neither legislators nor executives. They can strike down state marriage laws, as was done with recent rulings (erroneously and via pure judicial activism, but there is no easy recourse against that.) Has Kentucky passed new marriage or civil union laws yet? What law is this country clerk being told to enforce?

She wasn't told to enforce anything, she was told to do her job and issue marriage licenses to any two people that were entitled to be married. This included same sex couples as the one man - one woman kentucky law had been ruled unconstitutional.

I'm not disputing that she is supposed to fulfill the law. I'm asking what law didn't she fulfill? Did the Kentucky legislature pass, and the Kentucky governor sign a law that allowed same sex union licenses?

Kentucky didn't have to pass anything, the SCOTUS said that their homophibic law violated the constitution, and that had to treat everyone the same.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

Most laws tell you what you can't do or what you have to do to do other things.

Can't fish without a license or can't fish in a certain pond that sort of thing.

Lol this is great......

Dem's piling on a Dem's that hold Rep's convictions. No Repub's coming to their defense.... guess why?. Waiting for the head office on how the Xtian right is suppose to react, then to spin to affect

See to me, that is the definition of the difference

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Two observations:

1) It apparently is okay for elected officials to ignore the laws when they have the liberal ideology and social lemming media behind them. No one went to jail for refusing to enforce DOMA, DADT, Immigration Laws, etc.

2) SCOTUS rulings do not rewrite state laws. Judges are neither legislators nor executives. They can strike down state marriage laws, as was done with recent rulings (erroneously and via pure judicial activism, but there is no easy recourse against that.) Has Kentucky passed new marriage or civil union laws yet? What law is this country clerk being told to enforce?

She wasn't told to enforce anything, she was told to do her job and issue marriage licenses to any two people that were entitled to be married. This included same sex couples as the one man - one woman kentucky law had been ruled unconstitutional.

I'm not disputing that she is supposed to fulfill the law. I'm asking what law didn't she fulfill? Did the Kentucky legislature pass, and the Kentucky governor sign a law that allowed same sex union licenses?

No the US Supreme Court declared their law unconstitutional, therefore it became null and void instantly, so thus did not exist.

I'm not disputing that either. So where is the law to provide any marriage license to any two adults that apply for them? Those aren't just drawn up randomly by Joe Blow off the street. At least, I don't think they are.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Two observations:

1) It apparently is okay for elected officials to ignore the laws when they have the liberal ideology and social lemming media behind them. No one went to jail for refusing to enforce DOMA, DADT, Immigration Laws, etc.

2) SCOTUS rulings do not rewrite state laws. Judges are neither legislators nor executives. They can strike down state marriage laws, as was done with recent rulings (erroneously and via pure judicial activism, but there is no easy recourse against that.) Has Kentucky passed new marriage or civil union laws yet? What law is this country clerk being told to enforce?

She wasn't told to enforce anything, she was told to do her job and issue marriage licenses to any two people that were entitled to be married. This included same sex couples as the one man - one woman kentucky law had been ruled unconstitutional.

I'm not disputing that she is supposed to fulfill the law. I'm asking what law didn't she fulfill? Did the Kentucky legislature pass, and the Kentucky governor sign a law that allowed same sex union licenses?

Kentucky didn't have to pass anything, the SCOTUS said that their homophibic law violated the constitution, and that had to treat everyone the same.

The law said it was legal to give a license to a man and a woman (regardless of sexual orientation). 5 justices armed with emotional judicial activism and zero regard for proper legal argument struck that law down.

So if the law was struck down, some other law would need to take its place in order to issue licenses. Since a judiciary cannot write a law, it would take a legislature and executive to put a new law in place. When did this happen?

Unless of course you support a judge rewriting a law without legislative or executive review and have as little regard for the law as most progressives.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Here you go.

Kentucky Marriage License Laws > KY Wedding Officiants

Kentucky Revised Statutes KRS Chapter 402

Any laws that restrict marriages from same sex couples that they have on the books are now null and void per the SCOTUS because state can't overrule Federal.

No, there is nothing in the Constitution about marriage.

There is nothing in the Constitution about murder, larceny, rape, yet, we know they are illegal.

There is nothing in the Constitution about how corporations are created and classified, yet, we have corporations.

How? Because we have laws regarding these items.

What is in the Constitution then?

The concept that all Americans will be treated equally before and by the laws.

Hope that clears things up.

No laws have been rewritten.

No Judge, Supreme or otherwise, has legislated from the bench.

Since 1868 in this country, the supreme law of the land has said that all Americans will be treated equally before our laws.

All Americans, equal treatment, all laws.

No exceptions.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Most laws tell you what you can't do or what you have to do to do other things.

Can't fish without a license or can't fish in a certain pond that sort of thing.

Going to have to agree with ya on that one, and it is that same for most laws. 14th amendment says all folks are the same, and seems like Kim had a problem with that, and is sitting in jail.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Two observations:

1) It apparently is okay for elected officials to ignore the laws when they have the liberal ideology and social lemming media behind them. No one went to jail for refusing to enforce DOMA, DADT, Immigration Laws, etc.

2) SCOTUS rulings do not rewrite state laws. Judges are neither legislators nor executives. They can strike down state marriage laws, as was done with recent rulings (erroneously and via pure judicial activism, but there is no easy recourse against that.) Has Kentucky passed new marriage or civil union laws yet? What law is this country clerk being told to enforce?

She wasn't told to enforce anything, she was told to do her job and issue marriage licenses to any two people that were entitled to be married. This included same sex couples as the one man - one woman kentucky law had been ruled unconstitutional.

I'm not disputing that she is supposed to fulfill the law. I'm asking what law didn't she fulfill? Did the Kentucky legislature pass, and the Kentucky governor sign a law that allowed same sex union licenses?

Kentucky didn't have to pass anything, the SCOTUS said that their homophibic law violated the constitution, and that had to treat everyone the same.

The law said it was legal to give a license to a man and a woman (regardless of sexual orientation). 5 justices armed with emotional judicial activism and zero regard for proper legal argument struck that law down.

So if the law was struck down, some other law would need to take its place in order to issue licenses. Since a judiciary cannot write a law, it would take a legislature and executive to put a new law in place. When did this happen?

Unless of course you support a judge rewriting a law without legislative or executive review and have as little regard for the law as most progressives.

Marriage has been accepted between a man and woman for over 200 years in this country, am not going to search the history. Kentucky passed a law that said it was only between a man and a woman, and that was ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court. Are you that much of a bigot that you want to continue to deny constitutional rights to American citizens.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

Constitutional amendments are a little different.

In a way they are laws, but they are laws that limit government for the most part.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Each state has a constitution, which outlines things like the titles and duties of the state/county/city officials. Part of the duties of the County Clerk is to issue marriage licenses. There are restrictions and requirements listed, like both couples must be of legal age, etc., and there was also a same-sex restriction - which has now been struck down as unconstitutional. So, as long as the couple fulfills all the other requirements, they get a marriage license as outlined by the state constitution. A county clerk can't refuse a marriage license because a couple is interracial (not based on a law, but based on the Supreme Court ruling), and a county clerk can't refuse a marriage license because a couple is of the same sex (not based on a law, but based on the Supreme Court ruling).

So to summarize:

State constitution outlines the services a state provides for its citizens (marriage licenses)

No state can refuse an interracial couple a marriage license (based on the Supreme Court Ruling)

No state can refuse a same sex couple a marriage license (based on the Supreme Court Ruling)

Well, a state "could" potentially refuse, but if sued, a court will rule in favor of the plaintiffs, due to the precedent of the Supreme Court rulings. If a state refused a marriage license for either situation and no one sued - the state gets away with it.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Constitutional amendments are a little different.

In a way they are laws, but they are laws that limit government for the most part.

Sorry not sure what you are replying to, I have a lot of posts in this thread. They are a bit different, but can you imagine trying to get an amendment passed in our current political environment

Basically all but 3 republican candidates for president today, declared themselves uneligible to run for office. Will be curious to see what the media reports in the morning.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

I was just clarifying.


As far as the Rep candidates dropping out that is news to me. I guess I will see some new threads soon.


I don't have cable so I almost always miss out on the latest and greatest hoopla's.