Two kids out of wedlock, three divorces and won't marry the Gheys!

[Thomas_Barnes]

That has been my point in questioning what her beliefs are actually interfering with. Her job as a clerk is to simply verify the applicants information and stamp it, such as their names, dates of birth, and whether they are already married. She isn't "authorizing" their marriage, the state doesn't give her authority to say yes/no, only to validate the information.

There isn't any discretion involved. A website could, in theory, take care of it, but that information still needs to be verified.

Regardless, REGARDLESS, the government can not violate the Constitution or peoples' rights. She is the government. She does not get to substitute her personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, in to the situation. There is no accommodation need, or even discussion. That much needs to be made clear.

Do you mean irregardless?? Anyways your story does not make sense because you are saying the government can not violate peoples rights but then you say she should go to court and get fines but she has rights and I can not figure if you are on gay peoples side or religion side??

 

[naturalmwa]

Do you mean irregardless?? Anyways your story does not make sense because you are saying the government can not violate peoples rights but then you say she should go to court and get fines but she has rights and I can not figure if you are on gay peoples side or religion side??

What about gay religious people? Jesus was a single guy in his 30's hanging out with naked boys in a garden with abs no self respecting hetero would have. Paul clearly had a thing for his servant boy and don't you wonder why they call it a Peter?

 

[Thomas_Barnes]

What about gay religious people? Jesus was a single guy in his 30's hanging out with naked boys in a garden with abs no self respecting hetero would have. Paul clearly had a thing for his servant boy and don't you wonder why they call it a Peter?

I do not know because I do not go to church and I was asking him because it seemed like he was taking different sides but going back and forth. Are they really gay in the bible and if they are why do so many religion people not like gay people??

 

[naturalmwa]

I do not know because I do not go to church and I was asking him because it seemed like he was taking different sides but going back and forth. Are they really gay in the bible and if they are why do so many religion people not like gay people??

They were really gayish in the pagan religions, hence the hate from the anti pagan religions.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Do you mean irregardless?? Anyways your story does not make sense because you are saying the government can not violate peoples rights but then you say she should go to court and get fines but she has rights and I can not figure if you are on gay peoples side or religion side??

Oh the clusterf*** that is Thomas Barnes' brain. Or troll job?

What do you think "irregardless" means?
You seem to be saying that I am arguing two sides, that government can't violate rights...but I urge the federal court to violate her rights.

That is an understandable concern, but still one that is unfounded. The court is requiring a government official, a clerk, to comply with the constitution...not as a private citizen. She doesn't get to use religious beliefs in her government position, she has no "right" to it that the court can violate.

 

[naturalmwa]

Oh the clusterf*** that is Thomas Barnes' brain. Or troll job?

What do you think "irregardless" means?
You seem to be saying that I am arguing two sides, that government can't violate rights...but I urge the federal court to violate her rights.

That is an understandable concern, but still one that is unfounded. The court is requiring a government official, a clerk, to comply with the constitution...not as a private citizen. She doesn't get to use religious beliefs in her government position, she has no "right" to it that the court can violate.

Another KY clerk was on the TV tonight. He said the KY constitution which is what he swore to uphold protects people from any law that requires a violation of conscience. He also called on the Gov. to modify the clerk's responsibilities as a compromise position, but his solution was more along the lines of mailing in the paperwork to a clerk without his objection if I understood him correctly.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Another KY clerk was on the TV tonight. He said the KY constitution which is what he swore to uphold protects people from any law that requires a violation of conscience. He also called on the Gov. to modify the clerk's responsibilities as a compromise position, but his solution was more along the lines of mailing in the paperwork to a clerk without his objection if I understood him correctly.

Absurd. I addressed his claims re: the KY constitution earlier. I don't want or need a "solution", they need to understand the reasons the federal court is ordering them.

I mean seriously, they should think this through to potential repercussions. She filed a second request to not be held in contempt yesterday, but what if the Federal Court clerk took her line and claimed her religious belief is she can't accept court docs from conservative Christians who discriminate. She would probably claim that the clerk can't do that......

These religion-in-government folks are just shortsighted. They should not want other people's religious beliefs controlling government, because these people are not in the majority. Christians are, but not these Christians. Even if in the majority, it allows one single person, like a clerk, to wield great religious power.

 

[EagleHawk]

But see that isn't pointless, nor a strawman, that is entirely on point. Well done this time. I hope you can understand the difference.

Except for the fact that you're stupid if you believe that a religious Muslim is supporting the gays in this issue. More like 'Step back here, we have a special room for gays to sign'.

 

[bladel]

Except for the fact that you're stupid if you believe that a religious Muslim is supporting the gays in this issue. More like 'Step back here, we have a special room for gays to sign'.

Islam's condemnation of gays is beside the point, it was about state accommodation of religious beliefs.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get this statue installed at a local school:

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

An interesting thought exercise I saw yesterday was from someone asking whether those who support this woman's stand would also support a Quaker who refused to issue gun permits based on his or her religion's command to be a pacifist.

To (what I think) is theIowaHawk's point - it is interesting how one's political leanings influence which religious arguments people want to hold on to. I think many of those who support this clerk's stance on this issue would find themselves on the opposite end of the Quaker's stance - not because of their support for religion -but because of their conservative political beliefs.

Sigh. . . far too many people allow their religion to be influenced by politics.

It influences not only what is sin and what is not, but for many it also influences what sins are forgivable and who can be forgiven. It's honestly a nightmare, but to be honest I see the same things out of the Left as the Right on this. If Joe Biden says something racist or sexist he's immediately forgiven by the left, they will always remember it if a right wing guy says the same thing. In the same way the right is more then willing to forgive Mark Sanford and Gingrich, but my Lord they still won't stop making jokes about Bill Clinton.

 

[Jan Itor]

I don't argue anything here, I am just pointing out the stupidity of the right wing.

And doing a damn fine job of pointing out your own stupidity at the same time. Well done sir.

 

[gojojo]

Theres nothing extremist about following the bible

I agree, but don't go all bible thumpy when you aren't living a Christian lifestyle yourself. I think this is the problem many people have with this woman and many Christians in general.

 

[EagleHawk]

Islam's condemnation of gays is beside the point, it was about state accommodation of religious beliefs.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get this statue installed at a local school:

First you have to tell me what he plans to do with two those fingers he is holding up. Won't someone think of the children?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Except for the fact that you're stupid if you believe that a religious Muslim is supporting the gays in this issue. More like 'Step back here, we have a special room for gays to sign'.

I'm not sure what you are challenging here. I guess it is probably the age-old, "well our religious discrimination isn't as bad as other religious discrimination..." To that end, yes, sure, we agree.

But the picture I replied to was a Muslim allegedly refusing to issue a drivers license to a woman.

I'm not sure where you drug out the rest.

 

[Chewback]

Do you mean irregardless?? Anyways your story does not make sense because you are saying the government can not violate peoples rights but then you say she should go to court and get fines but she has rights and I can not figure if you are on gay peoples side or religion side??

"Irregardless" is not a word, Doofus.

 

[The_Joker13]

http://news.yahoo.com/latest-hundreds-protesters-gay-marriage-hearing-150541892.html

 

[theIowaHawk]

Well, I guess that above poster was correct about jailing her then moving on down the line. Deputy clerks now get lawyers, my guess is they are next should they refuse.

I don't like the jailing, but I understand it.

 

[naturalmwa]

"Irregardless" is not a word, Doofus.

I didn't know that. Learn something new here all the time.

The origin of irregardless is not known for certain, but the speculation among references is that it may be a blend, orportmanteau word, of irrespective andregardless, both of which are standard English words. By blending these words, a word is created whose meaning is not predictable from the meanings of its constituent morphemes. Since the prefix ir- means "not" (as it does with irrespective), and the suffix -less means "without", the word contains a double negative. The wordirregardless could therefore be expected to have the meaning "in regard to", instead of being merely a synonym of regardless.

 

[theVoicefromtheTomb]

You drunk?

meds are off

 

[theIowaHawk]

I didn't know that. Learn something new here all the time.

The origin of irregardless is not known for certain, but the speculation among references is that it may be a blend, orportmanteau word, of irrespective andregardless, both of which are standard English words. By blending these words, a word is created whose meaning is not predictable from the meanings of its constituent morphemes. Since the prefix ir- means "not" (as it does with irrespective), and the suffix -less means "without", the word contains a double negative. The wordirregardless could therefore be expected to have the meaning "in regard to", instead of being merely a synonym of regardless.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Her attorney suggested a rather easy accommodation. It seems in this state the marriage licence is issued under the authority of the clerk with her name on it. She apparently would be fine issuing a licence under the authority of the state with the Governor's signature or the like.

Couldn't the license just say "I as the Clerk of this count

Well, I guess that above poster was correct about jailing her then moving on down the line. Deputy clerks now get lawyers, my guess is they are next should they refuse.

I don't like the jailing, but I understand it.

I wonder if she can be released if she agrees to resign?

 

[ANYCHawk]

 

[theIowaHawk]

I think she'd have to be released if she resigned. There would be no continuing need for the order against her.

 

[Joes Place]

I think she'd have to be released if she resigned. There would be no continuing need for the order against her.

I agree.

Her options right now are:

A) Stay in jail thru the remainder of her elected term
B) Issue licenses per the court's instruction (and get out of jail)
C) Resign (and get out of jail)

She could also 'wait out' a change to the Ky process requiring the clerk's signature and they alter the form in a manner that doesn't conflict with her beliefs, but that will take months to implement, and she'd likely remain in jail until the process is formally changed.

It will be interesting what the deputy clerks do, as I had seen reported that one or more of them were 'ok' with signing licenses (others were not). If she had people in her office 'ok' with signing and she has directed them not to, then she'll stay in jail indefinitely; that may have been an acceptable compromise, but rather than do it, she decided to be the 'martyr' preventing SSM in her county...

 

[theIowaHawk]

I also think, if the deputy clerk's are willing, she could direct them to issue the licenses (presuming it follow KY law), which would release her. Problem is, so far, she has simply refused the entire office to do it.

 

[86Hawkeye]

Fines probably aren't going to be very effective. She'll just set up a GoFundMe page and people across the country will send her money to help pay the fines. They need to just fire her for dereliction of duty and end this circus.

She's an elected official, so she can't simply be fired.

She would need to be removed from office by the KY legislature after a trial there.

I just saw where the judge has ordered her to jail. Seems like the best solution short term.

I just have a problem with an elected official, who likely took an oath to faithfully execute the law, is refusing to faithfully execute the law. If this is against her religious beliefs, then she needs to resign to resolve that conflict.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I just have a problem with an elected official, who likely took an oath to faithfully execute the law, is refusing to faithfully execute the law. If this is against her religious beliefs, then she needs to resign to resolve that conflict.

Have you read her reasons for doing so (well really the other KY clerk's reasons?)

It is basically that Section 26 of the KY Constitution (?) says all other laws that violate KY's Constitution are null/void....which they believe includes the US Constitution and the SCOTUS decision clarifying the Constitution. As I had said previously, at least he supported their position. I think it is completely wrong on many issues, legally, but it isn't just shit thrown at the wall.

 

[86Hawkeye]

So now all of sudden liberals are appointed pope and get to dictate the rules about having babies and marriage and divorce to christians thats rich. Since killing babies seems to be a stated goal of lib planned parenthood

The conservative thing for her to do would be to follow the law or resign. Remember Phil Gramm? He resigned after he switched parties.

But she is a democrat

 

[86Hawkeye]

Have you read her reasons for doing so (well really the other KY clerk's reasons?)

It is basically that Section 26 of the KY Constitution (?) says all other laws that violate KY's Constitution are null/void....which they believe includes the US Constitution and the SCOTUS decision clarifying the Constitution. As I had said previously, at least he supported their position. I think it is completely wrong on many issues, legally, but it isn't just shit thrown at the wall.

Except it is. Federal law overrides State law, does it not?

 

[theIowaHawk]

It is a bit more complicated than that, and I don't think their argument has merit. I guess what I'm saying is she isn't simply screaming, "Sovereign Citizen! This is a maritime court of law!" nonsense, she is attempting to back her position legally. Obviously it has failed at every step, and will continue to do so.

I think the largest failings in that claim is that it ignores KY signing on to the US Constitution and ratifying the 14th Amendment. The SCOTUS in the ssm case clarified how ssm is to be treated under the 14th...which would apply to the States. So, even if their claim is that everything that contradicts the KY Constitution is null/void, it ignores KY's own agreement to follow those things. So, even within her own twisted argument, she fails.

This isn't really about "federal law" vs. "state law", it is about Equal Protection, and that KY's marriage licensing decision (through her decision to refuse licenses to ssm couples) violates Equal Protection, therefore she can't do it. The Judge is simply ordering her to stop violating the Constitution. It isn't state vs. federal, it is her vs. the Constitution.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I agree.

Her options right now are:

A) Stay in jail thru the remainder of her elected term
B) Issue licenses per the court's instruction (and get out of jail)
C) Resign (and get out of jail)

She could also 'wait out' a change to the Ky process requiring the clerk's signature and they alter the form in a manner that doesn't conflict with her beliefs, but that will take months to implement, and she'd likely remain in jail until the process is formally changed.

It will be interesting what the deputy clerks do, as I had seen reported that one or more of them were 'ok' with signing licenses (others were not). If she had people in her office 'ok' with signing and she has directed them not to, then she'll stay in jail indefinitely; that may have been an acceptable compromise, but rather than do it, she decided to be the 'martyr' preventing SSM in her county...

I doubt any change to the form is going to change her mind on it. She's just trying to stonewall.

For the record she's preventing all marriage in her county right now.

The situation has to be delt with, no question but the people who want to be married in her county can simply go to another county to get the license.

I know in Florida where I was married you can get the license from any county and have the ceremony in any other county within the state.

 

[bladel]

It is a bit more complicated than that, and I don't think their argument has merit. I guess what I'm saying is she isn't simply screaming, "Sovereign Citizen! This is a maritime court of law!" nonsense, she is attempting to back her position legally. Obviously it has failed at every step, and will continue to do so.

I think the largest failings in that claim is that it ignores KY signing on to the US Constitution and ratifying the 14th Amendment. The SCOTUS in the ssm case clarified how ssm is to be treated under the 14th...which would apply to the States. So, even if their claim is that everything that contradicts the KY Constitution is null/void, it ignores KY's own agreement to follow those things. So, even within her own twisted argument, she fails.

This isn't really about "federal law" vs. "state law", it is about Equal Protection, and that KY's marriage licensing decision (through her decision to refuse licenses to ssm couples) violates Equal Protection, therefore she can't do it. The Judge is simply ordering her to stop violating the Constitution. It isn't state vs. federal, it is her vs. the Constitution.

Is Kim Davis actually citing the KY Constitution? The only thing she's said is that she is acting on "God's Authority." It was the other KY clerk that said this during an interview on CNN.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I doubt any change to the form is going to change her mind on it. She's just trying to stonewall.

For the record she's preventing all marriage in her county right now.

The situation has to be delt with, no question but the people who want to be married in her county can simply go to another county to get the license.

I know in Florida where I was married you can get the license from any county and have the ceremony in any other county within the state.

Great, what an American principle: "When someone denies you your rights, just go elsewhere."

 

[thewop]

I think she'd have to be released if she resigned. There would be no continuing need for the order against her.

Not only that, she'd probably get a better job in the private sector from someone given what she's done. Like with anything, she's taken a view that many disagree with but many agree with, and someone will take her in.

 

[Joes Place]

Per early reports, up to 3 deputy clerks have indicated they WILL issue & validate marriage licenses (same sex or traditional). Thus, it appears Kim Davis has been unilaterally dictating the position in her office and actively preventing her staff from following the law. She COULD have probably asked one of them to sign in her place, but simply chose not to.

So, if that office is now back in business, I suspect the judge will allow her to sit out the rest of her term in jail, or resign. Not sure he'd be 'ok' with her going back into the same office after wasting all this taxpayer time when she could have provided a far more straightforward solution and compromise.

BTW, he is a Catholic, and stated outright in court that his religious beliefs cannot play a part when it comes to upholding the law.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Certainly hurts her claim that she just "doesn't want her name on it" and isn't stopping marriages.

 

[Joes Place]

Certainly hurts her claim that she just "doesn't want her name on it" and isn't stopping marriages.

Yep.....another (not yet completely substantiated report) is that she threatened to fire any of the deputy clerks who WOULD have signed the licenses, if they had done so under her watch.

If that is indeed true, they she should spend the rest of her term in jail. They can pay her as county clerk until her vacation time runs out, then she can be officially on 'unpaid leave' until her term is up.

But there is simply no way she can serve as a clerk again if she was going to fire subordinates for simply doing their jobs and following the law. It might be different if 'following the law' meant someone could come to harm, but preventing someone from a marriage contract (or any other legal contract) simply doesn't cut it.

She is a troll, not a martyr. She is very lucky that the judge is not also fining her AND preventing her from accepting (i.e. confiscating) any donations made to cover the fines. That was his reasoning behind NOT fining her. But she'll be a conservative Christian media darling now! Might be VP material for 2016 as a Tea Party candidate....

 

[lucas80]

I'll bet she ghey's up to pass the time in jail.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Yep.....another (not yet completely substantiated report) is that she threatened to fire any of the deputy clerks who WOULD have signed the licenses, if they had done so under her watch.

If that is indeed true, they she should spend the rest of her term in jail. They can pay her as county clerk until her vacation time runs out, then she can be officially on 'unpaid leave' until her term is up.

But there is simply no way she can serve as a clerk again if she was going to fire subordinates for simply doing their jobs and following the law. It might be different if 'following the law' meant someone could come to harm, but preventing someone from a marriage contract (or any other legal contract) simply doesn't cut it.

She is a troll, not a martyr. She is very lucky that the judge is not also fining her AND preventing her from accepting (i.e. confiscating) any donations made to cover the fines. That was his reasoning behind NOT fining her. But she'll be a conservative Christian media darling now! Might be VP material for 2016 as a Tea Party candidate....

LOL. She's a Dem. So, being an idiot, and failing to execute the law is perfectly in line with the Democratic party. She should be the poster child for the party.

 

[UNIowaHawk]

You do know ghey and gay are two completely different words right? Two very different meanings?