US: Despite order, office refuses to issue gay marriage license

[magnacarta]

This is really just the beginning of the gay civil rights movement in the USA. American GLBT people still lack national legal protection against discrimination in important matters such as employment and housing. In many states, explicitly anti-gay laws (not related to marriage) are still on the books. GLBT youth still face violent bullying in large parts of the nation. That social homophobia part can't be legislated away ... change of social attitudes is a long organic process. But the recent supreme court decision sets an encouraging precedent.

Have you and others ever thought about the rights of normal people,as you know I am against minority groups pushing their agenda on normal society.I will let you interpret that as you wish,that is your right.How would you and the other minority groups feel if we as normal straight people pushed for a society we believed in,you would then be phobic,i.e gay rights,freedom for immigrants at your expense.Other religions taking over your country and many other social issues.The world has gone PC crazy and has leaned towards all the minorities.

Where do the pre-PC minority stand,thank god I am getting on in life.At least in my day you knew what was what and where you stood in society.Yes I know all you evagelists and other blinkered do gooders want to change the world,good luck to you,just take a look at what is happening and what is to come.If you think I have gone of topic,refer back to my response.He is a constant minority poster,I have the right to reply and dispute his posts,no problem with replies from the same camp.I am standing up for my rights.

[magnacarta]

She won't do her job. Dismiss her. Not complicated. Imagine when banning interracial marriage was declared unconstitutional and some hayseed racist bigot in the sticks refused to do the job because of "religious" principles. Not different at all. YOU'RE FIRED!

Just like you and others should be banned from this site for pushing your agenda,same arguement in my opinion,in other words if it does not suit the minority,which you are then ban it.The other question is does the majority have a say?

Ironic, considering your TVF handle.

c

Sorry, but the U"S. constitutional rights are established to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority as has been in evidence many times in U.S. history. These rights are not subject to the popularity among the majority for good reason, as spoken to by John Stuart Mill, if I remember correctly.

We are not all yanks,I don't think your fore fathers foresaw the problems of the modern world,much like when the magna carta was written.

[Publicus]

 

I don't support gay marriage.

Well unless you do things to prevent others who want to get married then I really dont think anyone cares what you think.

No one cares what this woman thinks either, they just want her to do the job she is paid to do.

As for not being able to sack her, would contempt of court be reason for her removal?

 

The poster from the specific community in Kentucky can address the particulars but I would offer the following.

On becoming an officer of the state of Kentucky the clerk took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Kentucky. So the clerk is in violation of the US Constitution and very likely is in violation of the state constitution too, as well as in violation of the oath she swore. That's three called strikes so she's out.

As an elected official, involuntary removal is by recall or regular election, or by the larger and higher state authority, the elected legislature. As the native of the county and poster points out, and as would be expected in Kentucky, it is highly unlikely the state legislature would remove her. Giving her a medal and parade is much more likely.

Contempt of the federal court can include the punishment of a temporary incarceration pending compliance with the court order. Most often the federal courts impose as stiff fine for each day of the contempt.

The US District Court judge, David Bunning, is the son of former Republican Sen James Bunning who persuaded Prez GW Bush to nominate the son to the federal bench. Jim Bunning btw had a successful major league baseball career as a pitcher, primarily with the Detroit Tigers and pitched a no-hitter against my Boston Red Sox.

[Publicus]

 

She won't do her job. Dismiss her. Not complicated. Imagine when banning interracial marriage was declared unconstitutional and some hayseed racist bigot in the sticks refused to do the job because of "religious" principles. Not different at all. YOU'RE FIRED!

Just like you and others should be banned from this site for pushing your agenda,same arguement in my opinion,in other words if it does not suit the minority,which you are then ban it.The other question is does the majority have a say?

Ironic, considering your TVF handle.

Suggest you look deeper into the meaning,that is why I chose it,if you are a yank you will have to study,if a brit you will understand,swingsboth ways

 

While there is a direct line from the Magna Carta to the US Constitution, the Magna Carta had little or nothing of the specifics of the Bill of Rights that were added to the US Constitution.

Magna Carta was primarily about property rights, some consultation with the monarch and thereby limiting somewhat the powers of the monarch, all of which and then some little more were a big deal back then, and rightfully so.

There are common principles and themes in the two historic documents, but you won't find the Bill of Rights in the Magna Carta, or from what I gather in your posts to TVF either.

If there's anything in the Magna Carta that might support gay marriage in Kentucky or anywhere else on the planet the news would be a stop the presses bulletin for sure.

[Seastallion]

Do I have any sympathy for bigoted clerks refusing to do their jobs? No. None.

Would you bake a cake for a Queer Wedding which would violate your moral code?

We have to bow down to the lowest common denominator these days - enough is enough.

From what I remember it cost a baker $145,000 for doing just that, refusing to bakle a cake for a Gay Wedding somewhere in the South.

In reality it was nowhere in the South. It was in Oregon and the fine was $135,000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians

By Todd Starnes Published July 03, 2015

The owners of a mom and pop bakery have just learned there is a significant price to pay for following their religious beliefs.

Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa, have been ordered to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple after they refused to bake them a wedding cake in 2013.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) awarded $60,000 to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for “emotional suffering.”

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/03/christian-bakers-fined-135000-for-refusing-to-make-wedding-cake-for-lesbians.html

Good ole Fox News...."price to pay for following their religious beliefs".

Where, in whatever church doctrine they follow, does it say they should not serve anyone that does not follow their beliefs?

Fox tries to make the bakers the victims, and victims for being pious..

Utter rubbish.

[magnacarta]

This topic should be renamed" Deliverence" dualing banjos,explains the litteracy of some posters,get ma meanin; boy

PS This is a little bit of light hearted humour,just incase some folks see it as an inflammority post.Long live Jed Clammpit.

[sdanielmcev]

Would you bake a cake for a Queer Wedding which would violate your moral code?



We have to bow down to the lowest common denominator these days - enough is enough.

From what I remember it cost a baker $145,000 for doing just that, refusing to bakle a cake for a Gay Wedding somewhere in the South.

In reality it was nowhere in the South. It was in Oregon and the fine was $135,000.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians

By Todd Starnes Published July 03, 2015

The owners of a mom and pop bakery have just learned there is a significant price to pay for following their religious beliefs.

Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa, have been ordered to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple after they refused to bake them a wedding cake in 2013.

The Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) awarded $60,000 to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/03/christian-bakers-fined-135000-for-refusing-to-make-wedding-cake-for-lesbians.html

It is a matter of secular Constitutional law being superior to sacred cannon law. The rule of sovereign civil law versus the rule of personal anarchy based in personal religion, i.e., eccentricism.

The right just doesn't get it nor will the right ever get it.

Born losers over there.

Lol, the use of big words obtains from Google does not make one appear as if they are an expert. In fact, someone that actually knows what they are talking about regarding this subject would not use terms such as secular constitutional law, sacred cannon law and rule of sovereign civil law . . . God I love this place. Some of you guys always give me a good chuckle in the morning before I drag myself out of bed and force myself to go to work and deal with real life.

He's also wrong.

[Seastallion]

She won't do her job. Dismiss her. Not complicated. Imagine when banning interracial marriage was declared unconstitutional and some hayseed racist bigot in the sticks refused to do the job because of "religious" principles. Not different at all. YOU'RE FIRED!

Just like you and others should be banned from this site for pushing your agenda,same arguement in my opinion,in other words if it does not suit the minority,which you are then ban it.The other question is does the majority have a say?

Ironic, considering your TVF handle.

Suggest you look deeper into the meaning,that is why I chose it,if you are a yank you will have to study,if a brit you will understand,swingsboth ways

Lets just look at the full name: Magna Carta Libertatum, The Great Charter of Liberties.

I won't quibble over details...they've been argued for centuries. My comment (by which I stand) references the liberties which you would deny some people.

[sdanielmcev]

She won't do her job. Dismiss her. Not complicated. Imagine when banning interracial marriage was declared unconstitutional and some hayseed racist bigot in the sticks refused to do the job because of "religious" principles. Not different at all. YOU'RE FIRED!

Just like you and others should be banned from this site for pushing your agenda,same arguement in my opinion,in other words if it does not suit the minority,which you are then ban it.The other question is does the majority have a say?

Ironic, considering your TVF handle.

c

Sorry, but the U"S. constitutional rights are established to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority as has been in evidence many times in U.S. history. These rights are not subject to the popularity among the majority for good reason, as spoken to by John Stuart Mill, if I remember correctly.

Ah, no. The Constitution is for delineating governmental powers. The Bill of Rights limits governmental powers. Later amendments have been a mish-mash. Edited August 14, 2015 by sdanielmcev

[granuaile]

From the Lexington Herald Leader, http://www.kentucky.com/2015/08/13/3987637_time-for-davis-to-do-her-job-or.html?rh=1

A couple of quotes....

Regarding Liberty Counsel's motives:

So, why is Liberty Counsel marching alongside Davis in this losing cause? It takes a lot to keep that marketing machine humming and those executives paid, and the only way to keep those donations coming is to stay in the news. For that purpose a losing cause is just as good as, perhaps better than, a winning one.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/08/13/3987637_time-for-davis-to-do-her-job-or.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

And whether Bunning should delay his order:

The Liberty attorneys have asked Bunning to delay his order while they appeal it.

Bunning should deny that request.

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/2015/08/13/3987637_time-for-davis-to-do-her-job-or.html?rh=1#storylink=cp

[sdanielmcev]

I keep warning people, but they refuse to listen. As John Roberts so rightly said, this is not a constitutional issue. This is a moral issue. By not compromising, the gay community has a fight on their hands that the rest of the country doesn't want to be involved in. The Supreme Court ruling did not make law. That is up to each state to decide.

I've said it many times. Gays need another term for their marriages.

It's not a moral issue. It's a legal issue.

The Supreme Court rules on law. It ruled that the constitution says that the states can't discriminate.

Why do gays need another term? Marriage is a legal union. The supreme court has ruled that same sex couples can not be denied that legal union that any heterosexual couple can have. Marriage isn't owned by religion.

The Supreme Court (supposedly) rules on the constitutionality of cases brought before them. It is a referee, not judge. The 'same sex ruling' ruled the ban as unconstitutional. It did not make law. That is up to the individual states. Congress makes laws. And so far it hasn't.

The term - marriage- for a couple thousand years now, has been between 1 man and 1 woman. Coming up with a new term would have simplified the process, and, rightfully, would not have involved religion. And bypassed any moral issues. By co-opting, some say perverting, the term marriage, it removed the legal issue as the main object of discussion, and replaced it with a moral discussion. And before the cartoon mentalities congregate in coven of hate thought, I'm all for gays being able to have all the legal benefits, and disappointments of a viable mutual union.

[Publicus]

Sorry, but the U"S. constitutional rights are established to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority as has been in evidence many times in U.S. history. These rights are not subject to the popularity among the majority for good reason, as spoken to by John Stuart Mill, if I remember correctly.

Ah, no. The Constitution is for delineating governmental powers. The Bill of Rights limits governmental powers. Later amendments have been a mish-mash.

Tell it to SCOTUS and to the Founders of the Republic....

Reynolds v United States (1878)

Chief Justice Waite wrote the unanimous decision of the Court....

“Can a man excuse his [illegal] practices…because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances….”

http://billofrightsi...ed-states-1878/

[Jingthing]

This does happen to be a topic about a situation in the USA. I

Also I'm not sure it's really about the left or the right to show some BASIC RESPECT to your fellow human beings by avoiding using derogatory terms on a public forum.

But it's useful when people do ... it REVEALS where they are coming from. In this case: BIGOTRY.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Jingthing

[magnacarta]

This does happen to be a topic about a situation in the USA. I

Also I'm not sure it's really about the left or the right to show some BASIC RESPECT to your fellow human beings by avoiding using derogatory terms on a public forum.

But it's useful when people do ... it REVEALS where they are coming from. In this case: BIGOTRY.

That is your take on it,if we oppose your views then you can claim bigotry.Now put the boot on the other foot,what do you call it then?

[whybother]

I keep warning people, but they refuse to listen. As John Roberts so rightly said, this is not a constitutional issue. This is a moral issue. By not compromising, the gay community has a fight on their hands that the rest of the country doesn't want to be involved in. The Supreme Court ruling did not make law. That is up to each state to decide.

I've said it many times. Gays need another term for their marriages.

It's not a moral issue. It's a legal issue.

The Supreme Court rules on law. It ruled that the constitution says that the states can't discriminate.

Why do gays need another term? Marriage is a legal union. The supreme court has ruled that same sex couples can not be denied that legal union that any heterosexual couple can have. Marriage isn't owned by religion.

The Supreme Court (supposedly) rules on the constitutionality of cases brought before them. It is a referee, not judge.

The 'same sex ruling' ruled the ban as unconstitutional. It did not make law. That is up to the individual states. Congress makes laws. And so far it hasn't.

The term - marriage- for a couple thousand years now, has been between 1 man and 1 woman. Coming up with a new term would have simplified the process, and, rightfully, would not have involved religion. And bypassed any moral issues.

By co-opting, some say perverting, the term marriage, it removed the legal issue as the main object of discussion, and replaced it with a moral discussion.

And before the cartoon mentalities congregate in coven of hate thought, I'm all for gays being able to have all the legal benefits, and disappointments of a viable mutual union.

Same sex marriage was allowed by the Romans until the Catholic Church put a stop to it.

In the past, the same moral argument was used about interracial marriages.

Religion doesn't own marriage.

[whybother]

The best solutions that states - perhaps counties can do is get the Government out of the Marriage Business. Licenses were not issued by anyone a hundred years ago or so... And there is no reason to do it now. There are marriage licenses that are taken out but never used. So what sense does it make to have to have one. All marriages could be registered after the fact - even done on line or at a computer kiosk at a county clerk's office - so that for family law purposes they are in fact legally married.

And the same for requiring a license or a certification to marry a couple. Just do away with it. It is an antiquated concept anyway. Registering the marriage after the fact - DIY - do it yourself removes all possible bad encounters between ministers, county clerks and everyone else. The gay couples are still legally married under my proposal.

In many countries, marriage licences give you additional legal rights (tax advantages is one example). You can't claim something from the government if you haven't registered for something.

The fact is that there ARE marriage licences, and same sex couples want them too. They're not going to do away with marriage licences, so to avoid discrimination, they have to allow them for all couples.

[whybother]

I keep warning people, but they refuse to listen. As John Roberts so rightly said, this is not a constitutional issue. This is a moral issue. By not compromising, the gay community has a fight on their hands that the rest of the country doesn't want to be involved in. The Supreme Court ruling did not make law. That is up to each state to decide.

I've said it many times. Gays need another term for their marriages.

the problem is the marry word.....the country should be involved in religious matters.

have private partnership contracts, with some recommended from government. No matter what sex the people have.

Everything marry should happen in the temples....

Which religion owns marriage? Atheists get married. A legal marriage has nothing to do with religion. People were getting married long before the church got involved.

[whybother]

She won't do her job. Dismiss her. Not complicated. Imagine when banning interracial marriage was declared unconstitutional and some hayseed racist bigot in the sticks refused to do the job because of "religious" principles. Not different at all. YOU'RE FIRED!

Just like you and others should be banned from this site for pushing your agenda,same arguement in my opinion,in other words if it does not suit the minority,which you are then ban it.The other question is does the majority have a say?

I've always wondered, how does gay marriage affect the "majority"?

[whybother]

Do I have any sympathy for bigoted clerks refusing to do their jobs? No. None.

Would you bake a cake for a Queer Wedding which would violate your moral code?

We have to bow down to the lowest common denominator these days - enough is enough.

From what I remember it cost a baker $145,000 for doing just that, refusing to bakle a cake for a Gay Wedding somewhere in the South.

Most of that fine was for publishing the gay couple's address online, among other contempt things that they did.

[whybother]

This is really just the beginning of the gay civil rights movement in the USA. American GLBT people still lack national legal protection against discrimination in important matters such as employment and housing. In many states, explicitly anti-gay laws (not related to marriage) are still on the books. GLBT youth still face violent bullying in large parts of the nation. That social homophobia part can't be legislated away ... change of social attitudes is a long organic process. But the recent supreme court decision sets an encouraging precedent.

Have you and others ever thought about the rights of normal people,as you know I am against minority groups pushing their agenda on normal society.I will let you interpret that as you wish,that is your right.How would you and the other minority groups feel if we as normal straight people pushed for a society we believed in,you would then be phobic,i.e gay rights,freedom for immigrants at your expense.Other religions taking over your country and many other social issues.The world has gone PC crazy and has leaned towards all the minorities.

Where do the pre-PC minority stand,thank god I am getting on in life.At least in my day you knew what was what and where you stood in society.Yes I know all you evagelists and other blinkered do gooders want to change the world,good luck to you,just take a look at what is happening and what is to come.If you think I have gone of topic,refer back to my response.He is a constant minority poster,I have the right to reply and dispute his posts,no problem with replies from the same camp.I am standing up for my rights.

"Have you and others ever thought about the rights of normal people"

How does same sex marriage affect anyone except the two people being married?

[sdanielmcev]

Sorry, but the U"S. constitutional rights are established to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority as has been in evidence many times in U.S. history. These rights are not subject to the popularity among the majority for good reason, as spoken to by John Stuart Mill, if I remember correctly.

Ah, no. The Constitution is for delineating governmental powers. The Bill of Rights limits governmental powers. Later amendments have been a mish-mash.

Tell it to SCOTUS and to the Founders of the Republic....

Reynolds v United States (1878)

Chief Justice Waite wrote the unanimous decision of the Court....

Can a man excuse his [illegal] practicesbecause of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.

http://billofrightsi...ed-states-1878/

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

[hawker9000]

If the President of the United States can refuse to enforce laws he's sworn to uphold, and entire municipalities can declare themselves "sanctuaries" where federal laws they don't like cannot be enforced (and other jurisdictions actually prohibit their LE personnel from cooperating with federal LE), why can't a county clerk refuse the portion of their duties they find objectionable as well?

Isn't it funny how it all comes around ...

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic posts and replies removed.

[CMNightRider]

I would love to wade in on this topic but the last time I did, I was awarded a suspension. At first, I thought Thai Visa give me an award.

[mikebike]

This does happen to be a topic about a situation in the USA. I

Also I'm not sure it's really about the left or the right to show some BASIC RESPECT to your fellow human beings by avoiding using derogatory terms on a public forum.

But it's useful when people do ... it REVEALS where they are coming from. In this case: BIGOTRY.

That is your take on it,if we oppose your views then you can claim bigotry.Now put the boot on the other foot,what do you call it then?

Oppression by the majority.

[willyumiii]

This clerk needs to be arrested and incarcerated.

She has broken the law.

Worse, she is neglecting her duties and denying people their rights.

When she finishes doing her time in prison, maybe she can find employment at her church.

Religion belongs in church, not in government.

Superstition in government needs to be stopped.

Lock her up!

[little mary sunshine]

IT'S THE LAW!! Bible thumping Bi..h. You're Fired!!

[CWMcMurray]

Not sure if you noticed... But she is a Democrat...

Not sure how her Party will feel about this

Davis, elected last November as a Democrat, took over the office from her mother, Jean Bailey, who served as county clerk for 37 years, according to the Morehead News.

[little mary sunshine]

Mother to daughter ....bigoted redneck to redneck

Fire her, revoke the mother's pension for being

The bigoted redneck who raised her!!

[FritsSikkink]

This is really just the beginning of the gay civil rights movement in the USA. American GLBT people still lack national legal protection against discrimination in important matters such as employment and housing. In many states, explicitly anti-gay laws (not related to marriage) are still on the books. GLBT youth still face violent bullying in large parts of the nation. That social homophobia part can't be legislated away ... change of social attitudes is a long organic process. But the recent supreme court decision sets an encouraging precedent.

Have you and others ever thought about the rights of normal people,as you know I am against minority groups pushing their agenda on normal society.I will let you interpret that as you wish,that is your right.How would you and the other minority groups feel if we as normal straight people pushed for a society we believed in,you would then be phobic,i.e gay rights,freedom for immigrants at your expense.Other religions taking over your country and many other social issues.The world has gone PC crazy and has leaned towards all the minorities.

Where do the pre-PC minority stand,thank god I am getting on in life.At least in my day you knew what was what and where you stood in society.Yes I know all you evagelists and other blinkered do gooders want to change the world,good luck to you,just take a look at what is happening and what is to come.If you think I have gone of topic,refer back to my response.He is a constant minority poster,I have the right to reply and dispute his posts,no problem with replies from the same camp.I am standing up for my rights.

You standup for your rights. What might they be?

The right to prevent other people from doing things on a sunday.

The right to treat other people like second class people

The right to discriminate people

The right for your religion to rule the country

Just mind your own business, you dont have to marry a same sex partner.