Kentucky governor orders clerks' names removed from marriage licenses

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Kim Davis followed and respected the law. That's obviously a problem for those who just wish to force their will on others. But people can think what they want -- obviously.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Kim Davis followed and respected the law. That's obviously a problem for those who just wish to force their will on others. But people can think what they want -- obviously.

No she did not. The law said that there was no impediment to those two men getting married. The Supreme Court said so. Kim Davis disagreed and spat in the face of the law, placing her personal bias above the law. She took on the law - and the law won.

originally posted by: Boadicea

Kim Davis followed and respected the law. That's obviously a problem for those who just wish to force their will on others. But people can think what they want -- obviously.

The only laws Kim Davis followed and respected were those she agreed with.

The Supreme Court did NOT change Kentucky law, They determined it to be unconstitutional and struck it down!

So Kim Davis was more than happy to abide by an unconstitutional law that denied equal rights to some people who's lifestyles she disagreed with, but the moment that injustice is corrected, she refuses to comply.

If it weren't for Bible thumping bigots like Kim Davis, those unconstitutional laws wouldn't have been adopted in Kentucky in the first place.

Give me a break!

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Wash, rinse, repeat. Saying it over and over and over again doesn't make it true and doesn't make me think any differently about the legal issues. It just tells me about you and provides an opportunity to help educate others on the fundamental legal and/or Constitutional issues involved -- and shining a big fat spotlight on the difference between freedom for ALL and bullies who want to force their will on others.

Ignore the laws that protect Kim Davis rights -- and everyone's rights -- all you want... I won't. I will continue to support Kim Davis' freedom of conscience rights for the same reasons I have always supported same-sex marriage and everyone's freedom of conscience.

a reply to: Flatfish

The only laws Kim Davis followed and respected were those she agreed with.

Much like you're doing now by refusing to respect the laws protecting her freedom of conscience?

Kim Davis never tried to prevent anyone from getting a marriage license. She took the appropriate action prescribed by law to respect everyone's rights -- INCLUDING the rights of same-sex couples to get their marriage license. It was the established legal process, and the failure of the proper authorities to act according to their responsibilities, that created the problem and prevented marriage licenses from being issued.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Flatfish

The only laws Kim Davis followed and respected were those she agreed with.

Much like you're doing now by refusing to respect the laws protecting her freedom of conscience?

Kim Davis never tried to prevent anyone from getting a marriage license. She took the appropriate action prescribed by law to respect everyone's rights -- INCLUDING the rights of same-sex couples to get their marriage license. It was the established legal process, and the failure of the proper authorities to act according to their responsibilities, that created the problem and prevented marriage licenses from being issued.

And you can keep repeating that line of B.S. till the cows come home but that still doesn't excuse her refusal to do her job.

Kim Davis's conscience doesn't give her the right to deny equal rights to gays any more than it would for a Muslim clerk to deny drivers licenses to girls.

It's pathetic that anyone, (much less an elected official) would invoke their religious beliefs and/or conscience as justification for violating the rights of others.

I also find it both hypocritical and amusing that Kim Davis's conscience never interfered with her own infidelity or the issuing of marriage licenses to adulterers, (a sin that actually made the top 10 list) yet it stops her in her tracks when it comes to gays.

I've got some news for you; It's not her religious conscience that stopped her from issuing marriage licenses to gays, it was her hypocritical bigotry that done that.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Wash, rinse, repeat. Saying it over and over and over again doesn't make it true and doesn't make me think any differently about the legal issues. It just tells me about you and provides an opportunity to help educate others on the fundamental legal and/or Constitutional issues involved -- and shining a big fat spotlight on the difference between freedom for ALL and bullies who want to force their will on others.

Ignore the laws that protect Kim Davis rights -- and everyone's rights -- all you want... I won't. I will continue to support Kim Davis' freedom of conscience rights for the same reasons I have always supported same-sex marriage and everyone's freedom of conscience.

This is like talking to a brick wall. This is nothing to do with the rights of Kim Davis, no matter how much you might want this to be. She did - and still does, given the number of appeals she has submitted and lost - not have a legal leg to stand on. She refused to issue a marriage licence due to her own bias. There was no legal reason to refuse the licence, it was just her own internal bias. Now, there were other options open to her. She could have asked one of her assistants to deal with the matter. She did not. Instead she insisted on dealing with the matter herself and denying the application, based on her view of the law - which was wrong - and her personal conscience, which should have had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Let me repeat that - she didn't have to get involved, she could have recused herself and passed it on to one of the other people in that office. She didn't. That smacks of deliberation to me. She wants to be a martyr. As a result she's made a fool of herself and has been (in my view correctly) labelled as a hateful bigot who doesn't understand the law.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Kim Davis followed and respected the law. That's obviously a problem for those who just wish to force their will on others. But people can think what they want -- obviously.

Kim Davis requested "relief" sighting religious conscience.

She was denied for not qualifying because nothing in her job discription changed. Her job was to verify clerical information.

It's pretty damn simple.

FYI: I'm done playing these stupid games. I have neither the time nor inclination to keep arguing the same points, as if saying it a jillion times will change anything. I have made my position perfectly clear. As have others. Our words will stand on their own merit. And the reality. Kim Davis "won," and in so doing, she protected and defended everyone's rights to freedom of conscience. Including the haters who still want to stomp all over hers.

originally posted by: Flatfish


I also find it both hypocritical and amusing that Kim Davis's conscience never interfered with her own infidelity or the issuing of marriage licenses to adulterers, (a sin that actually made the top 10 list) yet it stops her in her tracks when it comes to gays.

I've got some news for you; It's not her religious conscience that stopped her from issuing marriage licenses to gays, it was her hypocritical bigotry that done that.

Yeah, no one has adequately explained to me why she had no problem signing off on licenses for other marriages that went against Christian teachings, but had such a problem with the gays.

originally posted by: Boadicea
FYI: I'm done playing these stupid games. I have neither the time nor inclination to keep arguing the same points, as if saying it a jillion times will change anything. I have made my position perfectly clear. As have others. Our words will stand on their own merit. And the reality. Kim Davis "won," and in so doing, she protected and defended everyone's rights to freedom of conscience. Including the haters who still want to stomp all over hers.

No-one is stamping on the first amendment rights of Kim Davis. No-one at all. She broke the law and denied a marriage application to a couple who were legally entitled to it. In other words she claimed that her 'rights' trumped theirs. Please note that she has appealed the crushingly thorough legal decision made against her. She has lost every single appeal. The fact that she keeps trying is telling. She's playing to someone else's agenda. She walked into this willingly, in an effort to be a martyr. Which makes her a hypocrite and a thoroughly unpleasant person.

originally posted by: Boadicea
FYI: I'm done playing these stupid games. I have neither the time nor inclination to keep arguing the same points, as if saying it a jillion times will change anything. I have made my position perfectly clear. As have others. Our words will stand on their own merit. And the reality. Kim Davis "won," and in so doing, she protected and defended everyone's rights to freedom of conscience. Including the haters who still want to stomp all over hers.

Apparently, supporting the Constitution, Federal Law, and the decision of the Supreme Coirt makes someone a hater.

Won?

The KY Governors decision to remove the county clerks name from marriages licenses will be seeing it's day in court.

The KY Governor has been fined over 2 million dollars for fighting against marriage equality.

. . . state law establishes the contents of Kentucky marriage licenses, including an authorization statement and a signature by the county clerk, and a governor cannot change state law through an executive order. If the General Assembly wants to rewrite the law when it meets this winter, it can, but the language on marriage licenses otherwise cannot be altered, they said. Read more here: www.kentucky.com...=cpy

a reply to: Boadicea

No, it's not totally irrelevant that the rules changed. Ask any same-sex couple who has now enjoyed -- or is planning to -- the NEW marriage rules, which were the result of many people's hard work and effort throughout the legal process. Nothing irrelevant about that Supreme Court Decisions that overturn standing state laws.

Yes it is irrelevant.

Kim Davis's responsibility extends only to certifying that the Kentucky State Law has been followed. It has NOTHING to do with the morality of that law or the religious proclivities of the officer.

The question that Kim Davis is being asked to answer is: Has Kentucky Law been followed, and is this document a true and accurate copy of the documentation that records this marriage in the records as held by the State of Kentucky.? End of Story.

There is NOTHING in that question that provides ANY room for personal or moral judgment - "has the law been followed' is NOT a religious test, it is a legal test.

Kim Davis violated her oath of office by attempting to make her personal religious judgement trump the Kentucky State Law and her personal oath of office.

a reply to: Boadicea

Now, finally, everyone's rights are being respected. The change to the forms has been made. Kim Davis can issue the licenses without violating her conscience. Gay couples can get married and reap all the benefits of government sanctioned marriage.

Except that Kentucky Marriages, whether straight or gay, may not be recognized in any other state, and likely in any other country.

a reply to: Boadicea

Congress made the rules... which may have served its purpose at one time, but no longer does now... so Congress needs to change the rules. Easy peasy.

Have you considered the actual REASON for those rules?

Did you notice that the Constitution requires Congress to make those rules?

Do you think about things before you commit them to posts?

a reply to: Boadicea

Kim Davis followed and respected the law. That's obviously a problem for those who just wish to force their will on others. But people can think what they want -- obviously.

NO SHE DIDN'T. And your repeating it over and over and over does NOT make it true.

Her legal DUTY is to issue Marriage Licenses - she refused to do that. She violated her oath of office and the law of the land.

Whether or not she followed a legal procedure to ask to be relieved of that burden is irrelevant to the fact that she refused to carry out her sworn duty - a duty that is defined in the Kentucky State Constitution - a duty that specifically assigned to Country Clerks, an elective office that she voluntarily sought and vowed to carry out. Such administrative relief is NOT something that must be automatically granted, and especially when it is the central responsibility of a Constitutionally created elective office.

Your efforts to call black white are getting really tiresome.

a reply to: rnaa

Exactly. Can I also point out that Davis denied marriage licences to ALL applicants - straight as well as gay. She failed utterly to do her job. Plus she keeps losing all her appeals.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: rnaa

Exactly. Can I also point out that Davis denied marriage licences to ALL applicants - straight as well as gay. She failed utterly to do her job. Plus she keeps losing all her appeals.

Also, she planned this prior to the Supreme Court decision.

Willfully, with intent, she planned on defying a Federal law of Equality.

a reply to: Annee

All for the sole purpose of setting precedent.

It worked.

Opposing parties are very happy.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Annee

All for the sole purpose of setting precedent.

It worked.

Opposing parties are very happy.

It only worked if her intention was to prove that government employees should keep their religious bigotry out of their job.