Kentucky: Oath Keepers Say They Will Protect Kim Davis From The Law

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Hence the contempt ruling. Their is no trial. Its really basic law.

Even a murderer who kill sin public in front of thousands of witnesses gets a trial even if they admit their guilt. It s a right.

Not the same. Read the law. This is like a probation violation. She can have a hearing thats it. Again what would a trial do? The judge told her their would be a punishment if she continued to break the law.

Like i said earlier a trial would had resulted in her walking and no repurcussions in kentucky. ANd How i si tliek a probation violation? SHe comitted no crime. Judges are a narcissitic pricks who get their jollies by harming others.

She violated a court order. You are clueless of how the judicial system works. She is in violation of the supreme court order. She was warned in court by a judge that actually shares her viewpoint but knows how the law works. A jury can not aquit a guilty person do you umderstand this? She is guilty and admits it. The contempt is defying the court order given to her....just like probation.

A court order issued by a MAN hiding behind a ROBE. It was a illegal order. CONTEMPT was issued on a local level not from the Supreme court. A jury can aquit a guilty person IF they think th eGuilt is un warranted or unfair. its called NUllification. Also if th ejudge shared her viewpoint why did he issue a contepmt charge? Its his discretion.

No no no...you have completely different branches of law mixed up and dont understand the process. She violated the law which is that same sex couples can get marriage liscences. Any judge or jury would rule the same. The judge followed the law like they are supposed to. She violated the judges order of her to issue the liscences. Its real basic law here. The judges get orders from higher courts as well by the way.

Finally nullification only works in very very extreme situations and never once for a situation remotely close this.

Again thats a moot since its contempt. Again read the law i posted feom the us code.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: luthier

oh this is starting to sound like a states rights issue.

How so is a supreme court ruling a states rights issue? Is there a federal tax code for marriage?

for example: a jury of her peers would agree with her above the federal laws enforced by the supreme court, which goes back to the old argument regarding the federal government being given authority to interfer with jury outcomes based on federal laws, all of which were put in place initially (at least the foundations) over the slavery issue.

Exactly and this is a similar case. All constitutional. You have to take down the 14th to have an argument first. Which will never happen.

makes sense. wish she would've just stopped to think about it a bit longer.

double post. need new mouse

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: luthier

oh this is starting to sound like a states rights issue.

How so is a supreme court ruling a states rights issue? Is there a federal tax code for marriage?

for example: a jury of her peers would agree with her above the federal laws enforced by the supreme court, which goes back to the old argument regarding the federal government being given authority to interfer with jury outcomes based on federal laws, all of which were put in place initially (at least the foundations) over the slavery issue.

Exactly and this is a similar case. All constitutional. You have to take down the 14th to have an argument first. Which will never happen.

So in other wors the 14th strips away th epeoples right to make decisions when they consider their government in th ewrong huh? Also enabling th eability to retry someone found not guilty till they are found guilty. great. I live in russia apparently.

Ah no. This woman is violating other peoples rights. Period. The highest court ruled...its over deal with it you lost.

Second you are still confused of due process. She can appeal, she can sue etc..trouble is its clear cut. By not issueing liscences she is violating the 14th.

Her religious freedom is not violated because religous freedom does not allow you to break the law.

Why dont you answer this. If a tribal person belives if they have a third child it needs to be sufficated in ashes would you be violating their religous freedom by not allowing this?

SHE HAS NO RIGHT TO VIOLATE OTHER PEOPLES RIGHTS. Thats is what this about. She should resign if she cant do her job. Unfortunatley foe the people of kentucky she is using up the legal system for people who have actual cases

according to jesus, marriage happens in the sight of god, the moment you have sex with someone, or even think about someone in a sexual way. that is why he refers to it as committing adultery if you think about someone sexually that you aren't planning on being "married" to. in effect, the state is just providing financial documentation and they call it a marriage license. the actual act of marriage (in the sight of god) has likely already occurred when they fell in love (no state documents required).


legal does not equal divine.
much ado about nothing.

a reply to: luthier

ahhh ok. Still contepmt is way over used these days. Still its weird to release someone with no fine or charges. They are just going to go around her and have her subordinates do them,which they should had done in th efirst place instead of making such a ruckus.

a reply to: luthier

Tribals ar eusually not normally under any laws so your example is not applicable.

Why can the government reject a duly given verdict by a jury? It seems liek th elaw is for US and not for them right?
The government became a dictatorship with th eillusion of voting then.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

The judge COULDN'T "go around her". She was elected and this was his ONLY recourse!

The Oath Keepers say she should've been offered a Trial by Jury.

I don't see that - - as she clearly broke the law by refusing a direct order to abide by the Supreme Court decision.

Hence the contempt ruling. Their is no trial. Its really basic law.

Even a murderer who kill sin public in front of thousands of witnesses gets a trial even if they admit their guilt. It s a right.

Walk in to a courtroom and disobey a direct order from the judge, and see how quickly you end up in a cell for contempt. She has not been denied her right to a trial. She was held in contempt, and arrested just as you and I would have been.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: luthier

ahhh ok. Still contepmt is way over used these days. Still its weird to release someone with no fine or charges. They are just going to go around her and have her subordinates do them,which they should had done in th efirst place instead of making such a ruckus.

She wasnt allowing them to and threatened to fire them. The judge thought the fine would be paid by her supporters and would not be punishment.

a reply to: Klassified

i think he gets that and disapproves of the amount of power they have.

argh this mouse. double post

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: luthier

Tribals ar eusually not normally under any laws so your example is not applicable.

Why can the government reject a duly given verdict by a jury? It seems liek th elaw is for US and not for them right?
The government became a dictatorship with th eillusion of voting then.

I am saying a person from a tribe can claim this if they are a us citizen not on a reservation.

Second the 14th came about for instance because white juries could do what ever they wanted to blacks. If kim davis lived in a satanic county should they be able to vote against her because of their faith or should they follow the law? The people are not always right as we see with the whole slavery issue. luckily freedom and liberty have universal applications.

a reply to: luthier

and you agree as a citizen of the usa, to retain your god given rights as an individual, which is not applicable universally. it's local to the individual. she has a divine natural right to disobey the law, according to the constitution, but that doesn't mean god (or the courts) would agree with her choice, and that is afterall, what she appears to be upset about. it's a non-issue.

originally posted by: undo
according to jesus, marriage happens in the sight of god, the moment you have sex with someone, or even think about someone in a sexual way. that is why he refers to it as committing adultery if you think about someone sexually that you aren't planning on being "married" to. in effect, the state is just providing financial documentation and they call it a marriage license. the actual act of marriage (in the sight of god) has likely already occurred when they fell in love (no state documents required).


legal does not equal divine.
much ado about nothing.

Just fyi people all over the world have marriages not just christians. The definition of marriage is not made by the abrahamic faiths it was here long before. For instance sometimes Tibetans married 2 men to one lady to help control population size. Some native americans has same sex marriage (couldnt have possibly even known of Jesus). Marriage should be a personal belief not one made by one religious group for everyone in the country. If thats what marriage means to yoh you have the right to believe that but marriage is not defined by the abrahamic faiths.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: luthier

and you agree as a citizen of the usa, to retain your god given rights as an individual, which is not applicable universally. it's local to the individual. she has a divine natural right to disobey the law, according to the constitution, but that doesn't mean god (or the courts) would agree with her choice, and that is afterall, what she appears to be upset about. it's a non-issue.

Yes thats it. Its good to be a rational christian I apreciate the apologetics because of this. I dont think the forefathers were all christian though and the god they spoke of was more the diest view.

a reply to: luthier

oh i know that. but she's interpreting it as a christian. and as a christian, she must be made aware that the state does not actually make or break the divine nature of marriage. the state can't make a marriage divine. it never will and in the usa, it doesn't have to (nor does it appear to want to deal with whether its divine or not).

All the people saying, the law is the law, do you really mean it or are you trying to just get some moral high ground but in reality you are just full of *ATS EDIT*?

Did the federal law for harboring illegal aliens change? There are a ton of politicians harboring illegals, and ironically they- like Kim Davis- are Democrats.

Mathematically speaking, there should be around 500 gay people and about 10,000 single straight people(of all age) in Rowan County. How many couples(since she was not providing licenses to anyone) did not get a license from Rowan county? Do you think that number is higher or lower then people that were killed, raped, or physically injured by an illegal alien in that same time period?

I am supposed to take it, that people are really all butthurt that a county clerk isn't following the law by issuing marriage certificates to anyone in that county but those same people are ok when presidents, governors, mayors, and so on, don't follow federal laws and people get killed, raped, or physically injured.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: luthier

oh i know that. but she's interpreting it as a christian. and as a christian, she must be made aware that the state does not actually make or break the divine nature of marriage. the state can't make a marriage divine. it never will and in the usa, it doesn't have to (nor does it appear to want to deal with whether its divine or not).

Oh yes i got you so in sense she is diluting her own religion. Exactlg why the forefathers wanted to protect the churches from the state. People always think its the other way around but it wasnt really.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

That was disturbing.

On the Oath Keepers, I wonder why they're advertising their plans ahead of time... Do they really want an armed altercation with US law enforcement? I mean, you can bet the Rowan County Courthouse will be crawling with LEOs, since Ms. Davis announced that she is going back to work Monday and the Keepers have announced their every move and intention. This can't end well... unless Kim agrees to not interfere or, better yet, steps down.

It could be scary.

KY 402.080:

Marriage License Required -- Who May Issue: No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.

So let me get this straight... she was under no legal obligation whatsoever to issue a marriage license to 2 men in the first place? The judge ordered her to break the law, then threw her in jail for not breaking the law?

If there is no female involved in the marriage, then she is breaking the law by issuing the license. Am I reading that wrong?