The Pope Just Handed Kim Davis A Huge Win

a reply to: markosity1973
Remarkably the system has a way to legally remove her if the will of the people becomes in conflict wither actions.

It is impeachment or a simple recall vote.

We can logically deduce that the recent interpretation ruling that came down is in conflict with the will of the people.

Otherwise and possibly in the future it may happen.

a reply to: deadeyedick

If you're talking the gay marriage ruling then the majority of the people support that. If you're talking the judge forcing Kim to issue licenses, then I think it's a fairly divided result.

Her reaction is an unintentional side effect of the SCOTUS ruling. They did not make the ruling just to piss her off.

But as with any law or court ruling, you're not going to get 100% compliance. If there was, there would be no need for the judicial system and prisons.

a reply to: markosity1973

If you are correct then soon we will see the people you claim to support such ruling go and vote her out of office.

Problem solved



eta That is what has made America great and not judges locking up employees

While I must say that I do generally agree with the Pope in this case, I do wish he'd have had the guts to say that in front of Congress during his US visit. I guess it was rather inconvenient and didn't fit the rest of the political agenda he was pushing at the time. Yet another bit of info to file away as to why I'm not at all impressed with this guy.

a reply to: xuenchen

The Pope Just Handed Kim Davis A Huge Win

Yeah err No

She was never required to personally serve gays.

The Issue with Kim was that she wouldn't let anyone in her office do their job by issuing marriage licenses.


The Pope didn't excuse her from that or say she had a right to do it. No win for Kim.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Not necessarily, because this is about two issues now.

One might support gay marriage, but oppose forcing someone to issue the license against their will.

Heck, I'm gay and if Kim and if her supporters were a little nicer about it, I'd fall into that category. What it will come down to if said vote happens is how popular Kim is with those who get to make the decision.

Right now I'd vote against her (if I were in her county) only because she is being belligerent and her supporters are bigoted.

originally posted by: Fireflysky
a reply to: schuyler

Actually a cashier from Mc Donalds can refuse to serve a customer. If that customer is making the cashier uncomfortable or being rude or mean, they do have the right to refuse.

Do you actually believe that is relevant to the point I raised? I was attempting to use an analogy. I realize some people can't handle that, take it literally, and raise pedantic points as a result.

There is no account of anyone applying for a license being rude to this woman. She's acting strictly on principle as a supervising authority. If her office works like my county clerk's office works, she never attends the front desk and sees the actual applicants. When she took office she swore an oath to "uphold the law." She is no longer doing that.

a reply to: markosity1973

Seems like you may be seeing what you want to see.

I can find poo slingin on both sides.

Seems pretty equal to me.

The couple tried 5 times to force Kim.

They drove from a different jurisdiction to specifically single Kim out 5 times.

They did not want to get married as much as they wanted to upset the crazies.

I seen it in carmans eyes when recounting the whole mess he threw up just a little in his mouth after reciting their actions. I hope the two do not let this drive them apart but I can spot these things much in advance.

I thought the Pope was telling her to resign.

How is that a win??

originally posted by: deadeyedick


The couple tried 5 times to force Kim.

They drove from a different jurisdiction to specifically single Kim out 5 times.

Not saying you're wrong but I'd like to see a link on that. First I've heard of it.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

We can logically deduce that the recent interpretation ruling that came down is in conflict with the will of the people.

I'm not sure where you're coming from on that but constitutional rights are not dependent on the will of the majority. They are to be protected by the government no matter what.

The majority of southerners supported Jim Crow. That didn't make it moral or constitutional.

a reply to: markosity1973

As far as i know, yes, she wouldn't allow her signatures on them and said they were invalid without her signature.

a reply to: xuenchen

And why would anyone expect a different opinion from the supreme leader of a non-secular nation state?

He probably just forgot that Vatican rules don't apply here, much less overrule our Constitution.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: xuenchen

Fortunately for me I follow the Constitution and not Il Papa.

Where in the Constitution does it state ANYTHING about marriage or family ? Geez , all the stars for a non-existent part of the Constitution.....SAD

originally posted by: xuenchenThe Pope Just Handed Kim Davis A Huge Win

Nah, just a tiny support group that is quite impotent to alter our evolution into a Loving, religion free world!
'Laws' are for those with no 'ethics'! Predators! Fascists!
The law will tighten around the insanity of the 'believers' until quenched!

"No one harms another unless they host some 'belief' or other!" - Zen Kahuna

a reply to: Gothmog

I believe it's more so for the 14th Amendment

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: Gothmog

I believe it's more so for the 14th Amendment

And the 14th Amendment states what ? Its just like Pareidolia to some people , they read in the Constitution what they want to read...

a reply to: Gothmog

And the 14th Amendment states what ?

Equal rights which cover marriage equality.

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: deadeyedick


The couple tried 5 times to force Kim.

They drove from a different jurisdiction to specifically single Kim out 5 times.

Not saying you're wrong but I'd like to see a link on that. First I've heard of it.[/www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Deaf Alien
no
basic rights
of which marriage for benefits are not part of because everybody can not get the benefits
it creates a paradox