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.
originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: JesseVentura
Were American citizens morally right to oppose the US Supreme Court's Dredd Scott decision?
We look back at that decision today and agree that the decision was wrong....
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Yeah, it's not over. She's still fighting to impose her religion on the people of Rowan county. I'm keeping up with it, but I know a lot of people here are tired of hearing about it, so I contain my findings to the thread I started.
It's not that she defies the Supreme Court that bothers me. Hell, I think we all defy the law now and then. What bothers me is that her illegal activity is negatively affecting the lives of the people of her county. She's doing her very best to deny rights to fellow citizens. And she just may be succeeding. What a mess when these people find out their marriages aren't legal...
FOX
The judge could appoint another person to oversee the issuance of marriage licenses, both to ensure that the licenses are issued legally and to protect the deputy clerks, who are now left with the difficult choice to either defy their boss or defy a judge.
"It's almost a worst-case scenario," he said. "The worst case scenario would be to send her to jail again."
The judge has wide discretion on who might be appointed. It could be a lawyer, another Rowan County public official or any citizen the judge trusts to carry out his orders impartially, Marcosson said. He said the judge will likely call a hearing, where he might hear testimony about the process Davis undertook to alter the licenses or the instructions she gave to her deputy clerks.
This ain't over, folks.
originally posted by: jjkenobi
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Yeah, it's not over. She's still fighting to impose her religion on the people of Rowan county. I'm keeping up with it, but I know a lot of people here are tired of hearing about it, so I contain my findings to the thread I started.
It's not that she defies the Supreme Court that bothers me. Hell, I think we all defy the law now and then. What bothers me is that her illegal activity is negatively affecting the lives of the people of her county. She's doing her very best to deny rights to fellow citizens. And she just may be succeeding. What a mess when these people find out their marriages aren't legal...
FOX
The judge could appoint another person to oversee the issuance of marriage licenses, both to ensure that the licenses are issued legally and to protect the deputy clerks, who are now left with the difficult choice to either defy their boss or defy a judge.
"It's almost a worst-case scenario," he said. "The worst case scenario would be to send her to jail again."
The judge has wide discretion on who might be appointed. It could be a lawyer, another Rowan County public official or any citizen the judge trusts to carry out his orders impartially, Marcosson said. He said the judge will likely call a hearing, where he might hear testimony about the process Davis undertook to alter the licenses or the instructions she gave to her deputy clerks.
This ain't over, folks.
That's interesting you see it as "imposing her religion". Really? She's trying to convert people to Christianity?
She is religiously opposed to performing an action that didn't exist when she took the job.
Should she have to quit?
If my employer came to me today and told me I'd have to start working every Sunday morning even though it wasn't a requirement when I started my job I'd tell my employer no. And I wouldn't quit. If they fired me I would sue for discrimination. Aren't we supposed to be protected from employers taking actions like these?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: JesseVentura
Were American citizens morally right to oppose the US Supreme Court's Dredd Scott decision?
We look back at that decision today and agree that the decision was wrong....
So how is a decision that reduces government oversight in the matters of marriage (keep in mind it actually only just overturned gay marriage bans, it didn't add any new laws to the books) and reinforces the Constitutional idea of Separation of Church and State a bad decision?
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: butcherguy
Ok. Just checking.
originally posted by: JesseVentura
If you don't like a law, break it, right? Former Governor Mike Huckabee has told Kentucky country clerk Kim Davis and her followers that their religious beliefs can supersede the Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage. What happened to the separation of church and state? Myself and my Vigilant Producer Alex Logan break down what we can do to defy the laws we don't agree with and stay out of jail.
Should Kim Davis keep her job?
originally posted by: jjkenobi
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Yeah, it's not over. She's still fighting to impose her religion on the people of Rowan county. I'm keeping up with it, but I know a lot of people here are tired of hearing about it, so I contain my findings to the thread I started.
It's not that she defies the Supreme Court that bothers me. Hell, I think we all defy the law now and then. What bothers me is that her illegal activity is negatively affecting the lives of the people of her county. She's doing her very best to deny rights to fellow citizens. And she just may be succeeding. What a mess when these people find out their marriages aren't legal...
FOX
The judge could appoint another person to oversee the issuance of marriage licenses, both to ensure that the licenses are issued legally and to protect the deputy clerks, who are now left with the difficult choice to either defy their boss or defy a judge.
"It's almost a worst-case scenario," he said. "The worst case scenario would be to send her to jail again."
The judge has wide discretion on who might be appointed. It could be a lawyer, another Rowan County public official or any citizen the judge trusts to carry out his orders impartially, Marcosson said. He said the judge will likely call a hearing, where he might hear testimony about the process Davis undertook to alter the licenses or the instructions she gave to her deputy clerks.
This ain't over, folks.
That's interesting you see it as "imposing her religion". Really? She's trying to convert people to Christianity? Don't think so. She is religiously opposed to performing an action that didn't exist when she took the job. Should she have to quit? I don't know, part of me doesn't think so. If my employer came to me today and told me I'd have to start working every Sunday morning even though it wasn't a requirement when I started my job I'd tell my employer no. And I wouldn't quit. If they fired me I would sue for discrimination. Aren't we supposed to be protected from employers taking actions like these?
originally posted by: yeahright
10th Amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Where is marriage delegated to the Federal Government? It's a state issue, and if the Feds want control over marriage then let them propose a Constitutional amendment.
originally posted by: JesseVentura What happened to the separation of church and state?
originally posted by: yeahright
The Supreme Court decision does a lot more than define who's permitted to enter into a marriage agreement. It changes the definition of what a marriage is.
What I do have a problem with is legislating from the bench.
LEGAL definition of marriage. Or at least, it used to be.
originally posted by: yeahright
The Supreme Court decision does a lot more than define who's permitted to enter into a marriage agreement. It changes the definition of what a marriage is. Now there are plenty of things I am in favor of, plenty of things I am opposed to. Personally, I have no problem with same sex couples entering into marriage agreements because it's neither here nor there to me.
What I do have a problem with is legislating from the bench. For every decision they make that overreaches that I ultimately agree with, there's at least one I won't agree with. And I disagree with the process that takes the decisions out of the hands of the legislators who are there to do that work.
LEGAL definition of marriage. Or at least, it used to be. That's been flipped upside down in a narrowly decided 5-4 verdict by 9 guys elected by nobody.
IMO.
The traditional principle upon which the institution of marriage is founded is that a husband has the obligation to support a wife, and that a wife has the duty to serve. In the past, this has meant that the husband has the duty to provide a safe house, to pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and to live in the house. A wife's obligation has traditionally entailed maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple's children. Changes in society have modified these marital roles to a considerable degree as married women have joined the workforce in large numbers, and more married men have become more involved in child rearing.
originally posted by: yeahright
This IMO was a significant overreach of judicial authority. It sets another bad precedent.
You're on board with this one.