It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kim Davis - an $80k drag on the system

page: 1
16
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   
So it would appear that Kim Davis isn't done with her fight against the law of the land. Instead of sitting in her office and collecting on her $80,000 annual salary while shirking her duties, she is instead pushing her religion onto those that she serves.

According to the article, she states that the licenses are "not authorized" since they don't bear her signature, but don't her deputies now have that authorization thanks to the court?
edit on 14-9-2015 by wanderingman because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: wanderingman

It's literally right in the first paragraph of your article.

She won't authorize them but won't stand in the way of her deputy clerks issuing licenses.

The rest is her puffing up her own importance by expressing doubt that unless she says so, the licenses are good to go. Personally, I hope that billboard faces her office window all day.
edit on 14-9-2015 by Shamrock6 because: Fixed the window glitch



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: wanderingman

I agree, it is time to cease issuing marriage "licenses" and discharge all related employees.

The state has no business regulating interpersonal relationships.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: wanderingman

Kentucky law states that her NAME and OFFICE must be on the form. She doesn't have to hand it out or sign it, but the license is issued with clerical authorization of the County Clerk. By her demanding that they not be on the form, she is forcing the issue, hoping that they won't be legal. And she may be right. www.abovetopsecret.com...

The court can't authorize a change in the law.

If she keeps this up, we may see the governor cave and hold a special session of the legislature to get rid of her. That's the ONLY way to move forward 100% legally.
edit on 9/14/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
How does this inbred backwoods animal continue to have a job?
There is no other job aside from law enforcement
in where you can totally do a human excrement
job and keep it.

-Toy the Bear
edit on 14-9-2015 by TOYBEAR because: God asked me to.

edit on 14-9-2015 by TOYBEAR because: God told me to again.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: wanderingman

I agree, it is time to cease issuing marriage "licenses" and discharge all related employees.

The state has no business regulating interpersonal relationships.


The state has to issue the license. Marriage is a legal contract between two people. Clergy has been granted permission to oversee the ceremony but it takes a court of law to nullify the contract.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Honestly I hope the governor does move on this. Whether to get rid of her entirely or to reshape the legislation.

The federal appeals court that declined to hear her appeal issued a great ruling. Their decision said, in essence, that the office of clerk must comply with the law and whomever happens to be holding the office at any given time doesn't have any right to circumvent that.

"This is your job, jackass. Do it, or don't. In which case you can deal with the consequences."



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: wanderingman

I agree, it is time to cease issuing marriage "licenses" and discharge all related employees.

The state has no business regulating interpersonal relationships.


The state has to issue the license. Marriage is a legal contract between two people. Clergy has been granted permission to oversee the ceremony but it takes a court of law to nullify the contract.


That is correct, it is a private contract entered into voluntarily and requires no certification.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Honestly I hope the governor does move on this. Whether to get rid of her entirely or to reshape the legislation.


I do, too. If this is allowed to continue, other clerks employed by the government will take it as a signal that they can bring their personal beliefs in to work, to judge who should and shouldn't be allowed to marry... or have a dog... or get a driver's license...

But a special session will cost the taxpayers a LOT of money! This is a poor state and this one woman is bleeding them out. All these lawsuits and court hearings, etc. aren't free.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
That is correct, it is a private contract entered into voluntarily and requires no certification.


SOMEONE has to certify that the couple is legally eligible to be married (of age, not related, not coerced, etc.). That is the job of the County Clerk.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: wanderingman

I agree, it is time to cease issuing marriage "licenses" and discharge all related employees.

The state has no business regulating interpersonal relationships.


The state has to issue the license. Marriage is a legal contract between two people. Clergy has been granted permission to oversee the ceremony but it takes a court of law to nullify the contract.


That is correct, it is a private contract entered into voluntarily and requires no certification.



Yeah, no.
Try filing a joint tax return without a marriage license. Marriage is a binding legal contract.
Besides, if you are correct in what you are saying. Why are gays fighting court battles for the right to marry? I'll answer that. They want equal legal rights.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Personally, I don't believe that government authorization is necessary.

But, if it were, I could make a strong case for dating "licenses".



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Bluntone22

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: wanderingman

I agree, it is time to cease issuing marriage "licenses" and discharge all related employees.

The state has no business regulating interpersonal relationships.


The state has to issue the license. Marriage is a legal contract between two people. Clergy has been granted permission to oversee the ceremony but it takes a court of law to nullify the contract.


That is correct, it is a private contract entered into voluntarily and requires no certification.



Yeah, no.
Try filing a joint tax return without a marriage license. Marriage is a binding legal contract.
Besides, if you are correct in what you are saying. Why are gays fighting court battles for the right to marry? I'll answer that. They want equal legal rights.


Repeal the 16th amendment.



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: TOYBEAR
How does this inbred backwoods animal continue to have a job?
There is no other job aside from law enforcement
in where you can totally do a human excrement
job and keep it.

-Toy the Bear


How intellectual and of character you post. No valid statements only name calling......


You're welcomed to be the smart one.
She's still an inbred backwoods animal that's
being paid to perform a job she's not doing.
3 marriages in ruin - calls of abuse in them.
She is what she is.
Hope that's valid enough for you.
Also this is an opinion forum for comments
I'm not Jeff Bridges trying to channel the integrity of
Will McAvoy - I'll save that for smart people like you.

-Toy the Bear



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
I think her statement is a dodge, she gets to keep her job and look the other way when licenses are issued.

Dual natured religious folk do that all the time. Its how they also justify being materialistic in the modern world and spiritual at the same time.

We work all week to have money to buy stuff and on Sunday we beg forgiveness for our crass materialism.


edit on 14-9-2015 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Personally, I don't believe that government authorization is necessary.


Necessary for what? According to law, government authorization is necessary for a legal marriage (and tax and other benefits, of which there are MANY) to take place.

Now, if you're talking about the relationship, of course, there's no government necessary for anything.

And repealing an amendment would take years, very likely. We can't wait that long for Kim to do her job...



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Just remove her from office. She is still interfering in her perceived round about but OK way. And some wonder why people think government is screwed up.

She wants to be a martyr, why not go ahead and nail her to a cross and make her happy. What will religion attempt to screw up next?
edit on 9/14/2015 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Personally, I don't believe that government authorization is necessary.


Necessary for what? According to law, government authorization is necessary for a legal marriage (and tax and other benefits, of which there are MANY) to take place.

Now, if you're talking about the relationship, of course, there's no government necessary for anything.

And repealing an amendment would take years, very likely. We can't wait that long for Kim to do her job...


I am speaking about the bigger picture, that we apparently have convinced ourselves that we require permits to cohabitate.

We do not.

Repealing the 16th must be done if we are to return to our constitutional model of limited central government. I was responding to the claim that we need this bad law because of another even worse law.

I make the case against social regulation generally but, each state can legislate as it sees fit and citizens can leave badly governed areas.
edit on 14-9-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
I am speaking about the bigger picture, that we apparently have convinced ourselves that we require permits to cohabitate.


I don't know of anyone who actually thinks we need a government permit to live together. But society DOES generally believe that you "grow up and get married". Married meaning the legal union.

I don't have any thought on overturning the 16th as regards this case. I understand you're looking at a much bigger picture, though.



new topics




 
16
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join