Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Found in Contempt of Court - Jail

originally posted by: sycomix
a reply to: Klassified

A Ruling is not a Law, 4 out of 5 judges don't cut it.

"If a bill has passed in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and has been approved by the President, or if a presidential veto has been overridden, the bill becomes a law and is enforced by the government."

Thus far nope still not a law.

What Augustus said.

The SCOTUS is tasked with interpreting the law of the land. The constitution is that law. They have ruled the constitution guarantees equal rights in this case. It IS law.

a reply to: Klassified

Exactly, when the supreme court rules in favor of any parts of the constitution in order to clarified the law, is not need for senate, the house or the president to step in, unless they are planning to rewrite or add clauses to the constitution.

Is not going to happen.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: amazing
As this appears to be a Christian issue.

What would Jesus do in this situation if he found himself as a clerk being forced to issue? Would he? Would he not? Would he do so but with as witness and with a statement, that if they but follow him, or meet him after work at Starbucks, he would show them the errors of their ways?

The Bible is very clear on the issue:

Titus: 3:1-2 Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, 2 to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone.

... is but one example.

And here is another example...
Romans 13

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.

originally posted by: sycomix
A Ruling is not a Law, 4 out of 5 judges don't cut it.

But if it's good enough to prove that a toothpaste is good...

Seriously, though, a ruling doesn't need to become a law in order for state laws to be in violation of the ruling. Basically, the SCOTUS said that you can't discriminate against gay couples when it comes to issuing or recognizing marriage licenses at the state level. Just because Kentucky said, prior to that ruling, that they were going to discriminate means nothing. The KY law is now null and void because what it defines as law is unconstitutional at the federal level.

Just because federal agents aren't rushing to enforce this reality doesn't make your version of the story correct--same goes for states legalizing marijuana...it's still illegal at the federal level, so people are still subject to arrest and conviction if federal LEO feels up to it.

But even that isn't as big of an issue, because smoking weed isn't unconstitutional, it's just against the law. Denying marriage licenses to both gay and straight couples because someone holds personal beliefs that this will send them to hell IS against the constitution and should not be tolerated. That's why the judge is doing what he did to Davis, and rightfully so.

I'm sure she'll change her opinion on gay marriage after a Jail.

Of course she won't.

originally posted by: amazing
As this appears to be a Christian issue.

What would Jesus do in this situation if he found himself as a clerk being forced to issue? Would he? Would he not? Would he do so but with as witness and with a statement, that if they but follow him, or meet him after work at Starbucks, he would show them the errors of their ways?

First of all, I don't think the Jesus described in the New Testament would have wound up as an elected clerk sucking off the teat for eighty grand a year.

And if so, he might have said something like "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's."

And if you're accepting the authority of Paul, as I'm sure Kim Davis would give lip service to, he wrote:

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

And that was in a letter to Christians living in Rome which was no doubt at least as degenerate as modern America.

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.

At least she has the guts and the audacity to stand up for something she believes in and is important to her. Just because you don't agree with her doesn't make her wrong.
Anyone who does this against the current politically correct system is someone to be admired in any case. Of course that depends on which side of the fence you sit.

Dont expect Jesus to post your bond Miss Clerk of court

originally posted by: Taggart

I'm sure she'll change her opinion on gay marriage after a Jail.

Her personal opinion is irrelevant, her decision not to uphold the Constitution is the crux of the matter.

a reply to: Klassified

Exactly.

Amen.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

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.

At least she has the guts and the audacity to stand up for something she believes in and is important to her. Just because you don't agree with her doesn't make her wrong.
Anyone who does this against the current politically correct system is someone to be admired in any case. Of course that depends on which side of the fence you sit.

Then conversely, the fact that you agree with her doesn't make her right, does it?

This is not a matter of "political correctness" but is instead a matter of honoring the US Constitution and the Judge who is enforcing same, the Governor of the State she lives in and works for, etc. etc. etc.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

At least she has the guts and the audacity to stand up for something she believes in and is important to her.

Absolutely.

Just because you don't agree with her doesn't make her wrong.

Agreed. I just happen to think she is wrong.

Anyone who does this against the current politically correct system is someone to be admired in any case. Of course that depends on which side of the fence you sit.

Of course. On one side you have people that want equality under the law and for people to have the same rights as any other person. On the other you have people that want to squash people and deny them their rights because they don't like what they do with their own personal freedoms.

When freedom is your number one goal than it's easy to decide what side of the fence to be on....regardless of religious belief.

If you want to have the right to believe in whatever religion you want, you should stand up for people and their right to be free to marry whomever you want.

You seem intellectually challenged.

a reply to: sycomix

a reply to: Gryphon66

I totally agree with your statements but I think you missed the the actual question; so I'll rephrase in case you or anyone else cares cares to answer. Why is it that is seems to be ok that some laws are enforced and some are not? We don't see news headlines stating "local man not arrested for possession of joint - federal law not enforced".

Again, I'm not at all on this woman's side in the particular matter. Nor, do I think someone should be arrested and jailed for minor drug offense.

originally posted by: newWorldSamurai
Why is it that is seems to be ok that some laws are enforced and some are not? We don't see news headlines stating "local man not arrested for possession of joint - federal law not enforced".

Because the law in question is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

If you can make an argument that you have a Constitutional right to smoke a doob then have at it.

a reply to: newWorldSamurai

It is not okay for some laws to be enforced and others not to be enforced. (That's harder to say than you'd think.)

In this case under discussion, the issue came before a judge and was decided.

How, exactly, would one bring the matter of someone not being arrested for breaking the law (MJ) before a court?

The Executive power (at the National, State and Local levels) does routinely make decisions about how to best enforce laws for the good of the most people (at least in theory).

Also, when one makes themselves a lightning rod (like this lady did) that's an easier target than a whole city full of lawbreakers.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

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.

At least she has the guts and the audacity to stand up for something she believes in and is important to her. Just because you don't agree with her doesn't make her wrong.
Anyone who does this against the current politically correct system is someone to be admired in any case. Of course that depends on which side of the fence you sit.

Then conversely, the fact that you agree with her doesn't make her right, does it?

This is not a matter of "political correctness" but is instead a matter of honoring the US Constitution and the Judge who is enforcing same, the Governor of the State she lives in and works for, etc. etc. etc.

That is correct about it not making me right, but I never said I agree with her, you just assumed that. If I was her, I would have followed the law, and the law was changed and so it should be honored. She didn't follow the law and chose instead to be a judge and a prosecutor which is taking things way too far not in her job description.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

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.

At least she has the guts and the audacity to stand up for something she believes in and is important to her. Just because you don't agree with her doesn't make her wrong.
Anyone who does this against the current politically correct system is someone to be admired in any case. Of course that depends on which side of the fence you sit.

Then conversely, the fact that you agree with her doesn't make her right, does it?

This is not a matter of "political correctness" but is instead a matter of honoring the US Constitution and the Judge who is enforcing same, the Governor of the State she lives in and works for, etc. etc. etc.

That is correct about it not making me right, but I never said I agree with her, you just assumed that. If I was her, I would have followed the law, and the law was changed and so it should be honored. She didn't follow the law and chose instead to be a judge and a prosecutor which is taking things way too far not in her job description.

No more than you assumed that everyone here "disagrees" with her. I just offered the converse of your claim.

I guess we both made assumptions, eh?

So, no problems. The lady was in contempt of court, and is now paying the price for that decision.

Great; consensus.

Delighted to hear this. They should not have let this nonsense roll on as long as they did.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: newWorldSamurai

It is not okay for some laws to be enforced and others not to be enforced. (That's harder to say than you'd think.)

In this case under discussion, the issue came before a judge and was decided.

How, exactly, would one bring the matter of someone not being arrested for breaking the law (MJ) before a court?

The Executive power (at the National, State and Local levels) does routinely make decisions about how to best enforce laws for the good of the most people (at least in theory).

Also, when one makes themselves a lightning rod (like this lady did) that's an easier target than a whole city full of lawbreakers.

And that's my point. Who get's to decide and what are their motives? (rhetorical)