Reluctant Kentucky clerk gets time for gay marriage appeal

[Publicus]

The clerk is sworn to uphold the Constitution, period.

No ifs ands or buts what so ever.

It is absolute. If the clerk suddenly finds can't do it, resign effective immediately.

The clerk is a God-hugging pigheaded redneck plain and simple.

[robblok]

The clerk is sworn to uphold the Constitution, period.

No ifs ands or buts what so ever.

It is absolute. If the clerk suddenly finds can't do it, resign effective immediately.

The clerk is a God-hugging pigheaded redneck plain and simple.

As I said and you demonstrated my point Us politics is like Thai politics no compromises and going to extremes to bother the other party.

Anyway we had a good workaround and it solved a lot of problems, you guys seem to like confrontation more. Not my country not my culture but it does support my image of Americans. Dutch were known to be traders makers of compromises. That is how we swindled the natives out of Manhattan. Americans are cowboys more extreme, my way or the highway. Different cultures that is all.

[Jingthing]

Dude, you're just one guy from the Nether regions. You ain't the bloody Dutch Ambassador.

Good thing too as I'm sure they could do much better.

Yes Americans used to think of Amsterdam fondly as a tolerant haven for potheads, but now we've got COLORADO ... so take that, windmill boy, and put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Jingthing

[Seastallion]

Because both sides do have a point, suddenly her job description changed and its against her faith

No it hasn't. Her job is issuing pieces of paper to couples who are legally allowed to wed.

I don't see that it's ever changed. All that's changed is the people who are allowed to wed. Otherwise it's none of her f---ing business.

That is my point...it's none of her business to whom she issues the papers. Just issue the gobsame papers in accordance with the law, woman, it's what you were elected/hired to do.

What those people do with the papers is of no consequence whatsoever.

[Credo]

She does have an assistant. It is her son. He won't issue marriage licenses to gays either. Her job description has not changed. If they lower the age for marriage, should she be allowed to say 'no' because she thinks they are too young? If they raise it, should she be allowed to issue to those who are underage because she believes that law was correct?

Perhaps we can do away with laws and the clerks can just decide who gets a hunting license, a driver's license and a marriage license. Perhaps they can start denying liquor licenses on religious grounds as well?

No, I don't really agree with the Dutch method.

[Jingthing]

I guess the only way I can see tolerating this kind of protest from a government clerk is if they were required to commit crimes against humanity. Of course if they were in such a regime and did that, they would be soon dead.

[F430murci]

The clerk is sworn to uphold the Constitution, period.

No ifs ands or buts what so ever.

It is absolute. If the clerk suddenly finds can't do it, resign effective immediately.

The clerk is a God-hugging pigheaded redneck plain and simple.

This one is not quiet as good, but still pretty dang funny.

"God-hugging pigheaded redneck "

Why O why does this bother you so much? Have a drink. Relax.

Yes, she is wrong and she should follow the law, but she is doing no real harm, at least not like those looters burning and destroying people's property that you defended.

It'll be fine. The world will keep turning, the sun will rise tomorrow and people that are legally entitled to get married will get married.

One has to wonder if those actually denied a marriage license get as worked up as you?

[ggt]

This Kentucky clerk is going to lose...whether one agrees with the Supreme Court Jesters decree allowing gay marriages throughout the US...is immaterial...it is now the law of the land...fall in line...or drop out of the work force...

[Publicus]

The clerk is sworn to uphold the Constitution, period.

No ifs ands or buts what so ever.

It is absolute. If the clerk suddenly finds can't do it, resign effective immediately.

The clerk is a God-hugging pigheaded redneck plain and simple.

As I said and you demonstrated my point Us politics is like Thai politics no compromises and going to extremes to bother the other party.

Anyway we had a good workaround and it solved a lot of problems, you guys seem to like confrontation more. Not my country not my culture but it does support my image of Americans. Dutch were known to be traders makers of compromises. That is how we swindled the natives out of Manhattan. Americans are cowboys more extreme, my way or the highway. Different cultures that is all.

Religion has its place in the United States and so does the US Constitution. The clerk needs to meet Caesar and the clerk needs to meet the Judeo-Christian God. She will discover the Constitution that she has sworn to uphold is a greater authority than is God Himself. The Constitution and SCOTUS are clear on the vital point....

You may indeed have your superior opinion of the Netherlands but do read SCOTUS and 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/

Given the history of God and religion in Western society and civilization the Constitution of the US contains provisions that are wise indeed, so others from nether lands might do well to familiarise themselves with the history, to include of course the Holy Roman Empire and all the sordid rest of it.

The clerk is sworn to uphold the Constitution, period.

No ifs ands or buts what so ever.

It is absolute. If the clerk suddenly finds can't do it, resign effective immediately.

The clerk is a God-hugging pigheaded redneck plain and simple.

This one is not quiet as good, but still pretty dang funny.

"God-hugging pigheaded redneck "

Why O why does this bother you so much? Have a drink. Relax.

Yes, she is wrong and she should follow the law, but she is doing no real harm, at least not like those looters burning and destroying people's property that you defended.

It'll be fine. The world will keep turning, the sun will rise tomorrow and people that are legally entitled to get married will get married.

One has to wonder if those actually denied a marriage license get as worked up as you?

she is doing no real harm, at least not like those looters burning and destroying people's property that you defended.

The statement is a gross and shameless misrepresentation of my pov and postings.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Publicus

[Seastallion]

As I said and you demonstrated my point Us politics is like Thai politics no compromises and going to extremes to bother the other party.

Anyway we had a good workaround and it solved a lot of problems, you guys seem to like confrontation more. Not my country not my culture but it does support my image of Americans. Dutch were known to be traders makers of compromises. That is how we swindled the natives out of Manhattan. Americans are cowboys more extreme, my way or the highway. Different cultures that is all.

Religion has its place in the United States and so does the US Constitution. The clerk needs to meet Caesar and the clerk needs to meet the Judeo-Christian God. She will discover the Constitution that she has sworn to uphold is a greater authority than is God Himself. The Constitution and SCOTUS are clear on the vital point....

You may indeed have your superior opinion of the Netherlands but do read SCOTUS and 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/

Given the history of God and religion in Western society and civilization the Constitution of the US contains provisions that are wise indeed, so others from nether lands might do well to familiarise themselves with the history, to include of course the Holy Roman Empire and all the sordid rest of it.

The clerk is sworn to uphold the Constitution, period.

No ifs ands or buts what so ever.

It is absolute. If the clerk suddenly finds can't do it, resign effective immediately.

The clerk is a God-hugging pigheaded redneck plain and simple.

This one is not quiet as good, but still pretty dang funny.

"God-hugging pigheaded redneck "

Why O why does this bother you so much? Have a drink. Relax.

Yes, she is wrong and she should follow the law, but she is doing no real harm, at least not like those looters burning and destroying people's property that you defended.

It'll be fine. The world will keep turning, the sun will rise tomorrow and people that are legally entitled to get married will get married.

One has to wonder if those actually denied a marriage license get as worked up as you?

she is doing no real harm, at least not like those looters burning and destroying people's property that you defended.

The statement is a gross and shameless misrepresentation of my pov and postings.

Don't sweat it...our resident self-proclaimed fancy rich boy lawyer hates references to rednecks....cuts too deep.

[Jingthing]

The Davids gaysplain the situation to y'all.

Right now, bills are being drafted in our state that would seek to accommodate a state official’s religious beliefs if they object to doing a part of their job that they find objectionable. One option would be to create an online system where marriage licenses can be registered with no interaction from a clerk. This has been compared to the way hunting and fishing licenses can be obtained online. This, of course, does not support the claims by those who say that marriage is a sacred union that should be blessed and held with reverence. If a getting a marriage license is as frivolous as obtaining a fishing license, then why has the resistance to marriage equality been so intense? It seems opponents of marriage equality want to have it both ways.

http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2015/08/18/op-ed-were-still-fighting-marry-kentucky

[F430murci]

Speaking of redneck hell, I am sitting in a Crackerbarrel in the middle of nowheresville, Tennessee, and it felt like the twilight zone walking in. People look so different in certain areas, but they are all still good people, facing the same life struggles as everyone else doing the best they can.

Use if the term redneck, God hugging and all the other juvenile terms and stereotypes to describe people living in rural areas just reflects simple minded, juvenile bigotry or reverse bigotry that is actually deeper or more pervasive than that commonly held by the people that now surround me.

[sdanielmcev]

Funny how one set of morals can trump another set of morals. One of the discussions during the Obergfell Supreme Court hearing was about enforcement. Neither side could answer. This is why using the Supreme Court to make law is such a bad idea. It solves nothing. Kim Davis, being elected, cannot be fired from her position. She also has a right, guaranteed by the Constitution to freedom of speech, which was turned into freedom of expression. So, now, her first amendment rights are being violated by the same group that sought Constitutional protection.

[Seastallion]

Funny how one set of morals can trump another set of morals. One of the discussions during the Obergfell Supreme Court hearing was about enforcement. Neither side could answer. This is why using the Supreme Court to make law is such a bad idea. It solves nothing. Kim Davis, being elected, cannot be fired from her position. She also has a right, guaranteed by the Constitution to freedom of speech, which was turned into freedom of expression. So, now, her first amendment rights are being violated by the same group that sought Constitutional protection.

Her rights end where they infringe on another's rights.

[Seastallion]

Speaking of redneck hell, I am sitting in a Crackerbarrel in the middle of nowheresville, Tennessee, and it felt like the twilight zone walking in. People look so different in certain areas, but they are all still good people, facing the same life struggles as everyone else doing the best they can.

Use if the term redneck, God hugging and all the other juvenile terms and stereotypes to describe people living in rural areas just reflects simple minded, juvenile bigotry or reverse bigotry that is actually deeper or more pervasive than that commonly held by the people that now surround me.

...Because they don't have the ability to think deeper? Maybe?

Just a question.

[F430murci]

As I said and you demonstrated my point Us politics is like Thai politics no compromises and going to extremes to bother the other party.

Anyway we had a good workaround and it solved a lot of problems, you guys seem to like confrontation more. Not my country not my culture but it does support my image of Americans. Dutch were known to be traders makers of compromises. That is how we swindled the natives out of Manhattan. Americans are cowboys more extreme, my way or the highway. Different cultures that is all.

Religion has its place in the United States and so does the US Constitution. The clerk needs to meet Caesar and the clerk needs to meet the Judeo-Christian God. She will discover the Constitution that she has sworn to uphold is a greater authority than is God Himself. The Constitution and SCOTUS are clear on the vital point....

You may indeed have your superior opinion of the Netherlands but do read SCOTUS and 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/

Given the history of God and religion in Western society and civilization the Constitution of the US contains provisions that are wise indeed, so others from nether lands might do well to familiarise themselves with the history, to include of course the Holy Roman Empire and all the sordid rest of it.

The clerk is sworn to uphold the Constitution, period.

No ifs ands or buts what so ever.

It is absolute. If the clerk suddenly finds can't do it, resign effective immediately.

The clerk is a God-hugging pigheaded redneck plain and simple.

This one is not quiet as good, but still pretty dang funny.

"God-hugging pigheaded redneck "

Why O why does this bother you so much? Have a drink. Relax.

Yes, she is wrong and she should follow the law, but she is doing no real harm, at least not like those looters burning and destroying people's property that you defended.

It'll be fine. The world will keep turning, the sun will rise tomorrow and people that are legally entitled to get married will get married.

One has to wonder if those actually denied a marriage license get as worked up as you?

she is doing no real harm, at least not like those looters burning and destroying people's property that you defended.

The statement is a gross and shameless misrepresentation of my pov and postings.

Don't sweat it...our resident self-proclaimed fancy rich boy lawyer hates references to rednecks....cuts too deep.

I think stereotypes and broad general labels used in a demeaning fashion toward people or groups of people one has never meant are wrong.

Do I hate? Silly. You guys are nothing but a cartoon, freak show of the week entertainment for mindless down time.. Some watch TV, some gamble, some get wasted at bars . . . I read up in here. Never disappoints!

[sdanielmcev]

Funny how one set of morals can trump another set of morals. One of the discussions during the Obergfell Supreme Court hearing was about enforcement. Neither side could answer. This is why using the Supreme Court to make law is such a bad idea. It solves nothing. Kim Davis, being elected, cannot be fired from her position. She also has a right, guaranteed by the Constitution to freedom of speech, which was turned into freedom of expression. So, now, her first amendment rights are being violated by the same group that sought Constitutional protection.

Her rights end where they infringe on another's rights.

How? Why are this gay couples' right more important than Ms Davis'? They are infringing on her rights, too.

[Seastallion]

Funny how one set of morals can trump another set of morals. One of the discussions during the Obergfell Supreme Court hearing was about enforcement. Neither side could answer. This is why using the Supreme Court to make law is such a bad idea. It solves nothing. Kim Davis, being elected, cannot be fired from her position. She also has a right, guaranteed by the Constitution to freedom of speech, which was turned into freedom of expression. So, now, her first amendment rights are being violated by the same group that sought Constitutional protection.

Her rights end where they infringe on another's rights.

How? Why are this gay couples' right more important than Ms Davis'? They are infringing on her rights, too.

You say you're a lawyer???

What right of Davis is infringed upon in the gay couple demanding a marriage license be issued to them? Keep in mind that religious conviction does not trump law....and besides that, what has her religious conviction got to do with not issuing a legitimate document?

Here's where it all falls apart for you; She believes they should not be married, from her religious POV, not a legal POV. The law affords them the right to be married. That's clear. The law does not afford her the right to deny them their legal right simply because she thinks it's wrong.

If someone believes that they have the right to "honour kill" their sister for some religious reason, does their belief trump the law?

[F430murci]

Speaking of redneck hell, I am sitting in a Crackerbarrel in the middle of nowheresville, Tennessee, and it felt like the twilight zone walking in. People look so different in certain areas, but they are all still good people, facing the same life struggles as everyone else doing the best they can.

Use if the term redneck, God hugging and all the other juvenile terms and stereotypes to describe people living in rural areas just reflects simple minded, juvenile bigotry or reverse bigotry that is actually deeper or more pervasive than that commonly held by the people that now surround me.

...Because they don't have the ability to think deeper? Maybe?

Just a question.

Lol, you give yourself way too much credit! Perhaps they are just good people that do feel the need to constantly stand in judgment if others.

I was in country court this morning as I represent a defense contractor that is literally out in the sticks. Everyone was very nice, friendly, cordial and professional. A welcome change in atmosphere from New York, LA and San Diego where most of my cases seem to be at this time.

Maybe these country folk have something on all of us. Life is too short to be all spun out over things.

[Seastallion]

Speaking of redneck hell, I am sitting in a Crackerbarrel in the middle of nowheresville, Tennessee, and it felt like the twilight zone walking in. People look so different in certain areas, but they are all still good people, facing the same life struggles as everyone else doing the best they can.

Use if the term redneck, God hugging and all the other juvenile terms and stereotypes to describe people living in rural areas just reflects simple minded, juvenile bigotry or reverse bigotry that is actually deeper or more pervasive than that commonly held by the people that now surround me.

...Because they don't have the ability to think deeper? Maybe?

Just a question.

Lol, you give yourself way too much credit! Perhaps they are just good people that do feel the need to constantly stand in judgment if others.

I was in country court this morning as I represent a defense contractor that is literally out in the sticks. Everyone was very nice, friendly, cordial and professional. A welcome change in atmosphere from New York, LA and San Diego where most of my cases seem to be at this time.

Maybe these country folk have something on all of us. Life is too short to be all spun out over things.

You call yourself a lawyer?? Where did I blow my own trumpet?

If you are a lawyer, I pity your clients.

[Publicus]

Funny how one set of morals can trump another set of morals. One of the discussions during the Obergfell Supreme Court hearing was about enforcement. Neither side could answer. This is why using the Supreme Court to make law is such a bad idea. It solves nothing. Kim Davis, being elected, cannot be fired from her position. She also has a right, guaranteed by the Constitution to freedom of speech, which was turned into freedom of expression. So, now, her first amendment rights are being violated by the same group that sought Constitutional protection.

now, her first amendment rights are being violated by the same group that sought Constitutional protection.

Produce the court order requiring her to not speak on the matter, or any same or similar filing in a court of law by people who oppose her lawlessness and anarchy. What if anything has Davis alleged in this respect, or is this simply yet another vacuous claim by the right designed to smear those who in fact advocate the Constitution. This God-hugging redneck wouldn't know free speech if she heard it because she certainly does not know the Constitution or the oath she swore to uphold it. Davis no doubt can however recite her holy book chapter and verse.

This is why using the Supreme Court to make law is such a bad idea.

That is no one's idea. Read up on it soon plse thx.

In Constitutional matters, SCOTUS says what the Constitution says. There is nothing involved in it that makes a law. The Supreme Court is not a legislature, it is the judicial branch of government. That is something the right has never got about the Constitution. The stuff about SCOTUS writing its own law is entirely rightwing rhetoric spoken because the right cannot defend its string of loses at the Court over many decades to the present.

SCOTUS has no Constitutional means to enforce its legal opinions or its rulings, meaning it relies on good citizenship to honor its decisions as judges/justices. Federal district courts have authority to enforce their opinions, which means the Republican judge in this case could/should have put Davis in the slammer until she agreed to comply with the court's order.

[Publicus]

Funny how one set of morals can trump another set of morals. One of the discussions during the Obergfell Supreme Court hearing was about enforcement. Neither side could answer. This is why using the Supreme Court to make law is such a bad idea. It solves nothing. Kim Davis, being elected, cannot be fired from her position. She also has a right, guaranteed by the Constitution to freedom of speech, which was turned into freedom of expression. So, now, her first amendment rights are being violated by the same group that sought Constitutional protection.

Her rights end where they infringe on another's rights.

How? Why are this gay couples' right more important than Ms Davis'? They are infringing on her rights, too.

Tell it to SCOTUS and tell it to the federal judge down there in Kentucky.

[Publicus]

Speaking of redneck hell, I am sitting in a Crackerbarrel in the middle of nowheresville, Tennessee, and it felt like the twilight zone walking in. People look so different in certain areas, but they are all still good people, facing the same life struggles as everyone else doing the best they can.

Use if the term redneck, God hugging and all the other juvenile terms and stereotypes to describe people living in rural areas just reflects simple minded, juvenile bigotry or reverse bigotry that is actually deeper or more pervasive than that commonly held by the people that now surround me.

Well I reckon if I lived down in those parts I'd marry a foreign bombshell too cause this twice divorced Davis clerk is one redneck skank.

[Credo]

Funny how one set of morals can trump another set of morals. One of the discussions during the Obergfell Supreme Court hearing was about enforcement. Neither side could answer. This is why using the Supreme Court to make law is such a bad idea. It solves nothing. Kim Davis, being elected, cannot be fired from her position. She also has a right, guaranteed by the Constitution to freedom of speech, which was turned into freedom of expression. So, now, her first amendment rights are being violated by the same group that sought Constitutional protection.

Her rights end where they infringe on another's rights.

How? Why are this gay couples' right more important than Ms Davis'? They are infringing on her rights, too.

Ms. Davis is paid to do a job. The people coming in for a marriage license are paying for the license. Her rights are not the issue, the couple's rights are the issue.

[dontoearth]

No stay should have been granted. A stay implies that this clerk has a case that is worthy. It is not! That she might prevail. She will not. I think the judge doesn't want to offend the big time conservative republican base from which he draws his support. This is not supposed to happen. Her financial backers are big time repubs. And of course has this Christian woman thought about the words of Christ, "Judge not, lest you be judged." "Render unto ceasar what is cesar's" (means you are not to use religion in politics) and on her own divorce doesn't Christ say that is NO NO? Yeah I am judging but I am sure I am hypocrite! Maybe sinful.

[samran]

The federal judge appointed by GW Bush is falling down on the job, same as Bush himself did.

The clerk is a God freak twit anarchist in a blatant violation of the US Constitution, the Kentucky constitution, the clerk's oath of office. She is a hard core rightwing militant extremist who no doubt will vote Republican for prez next year.

Locking away Davis for contempt of court would make her a felon ineligible for public office again period. So this Republican judge is a wimp.

You know the constitution sacrosanct for these people only when it comes to guns and the right to be an <deleted>, um, sorry, freedom of expression.

[Thakkar]

" "It was thought-out and, you know, I sought God on it.""

Yeah...He gives great advice; Bush's invasion of Iraq was on advice from Him too.

It's almost as if God is speaking through Fox News.

T

[Seastallion]

" "It was thought-out and, you know, I sought God on it.""

Yeah...He gives great advice; Bush's invasion of Iraq was on advice from Him too.

It's almost as if God is speaking through Fox News.

T

By golly, I think you're right!

[Thakkar]

In the Netherlands they worked around this problem by having stand in clerks who would perform the duty. This would mean marriage could be registered. But all new clerks needed to accept they had to wed gays or they would not get a job. Old ones would be allowed not too but then there should be a replacement doing it.

Seems logical and pragmatic, instead of fighting battles making sure things got done, and by making sure that all future clerks have to register gay marriages slowly weeding out the ones who would not. Because both sides do have a point, suddenly her job description changed and its against her faith, while on the other hand the couples have the right to wed.

Maybe too logical for the US.

Respectfully, I disagree. What if a Hindu clerk says its against his religion for people of different casts to marry? Or wrong for a Hindu to marry a person who eats beef? It's a whole crazy minefield once you start introducing exemptions. The clerk swore to uphold The Constitution. The Supreme Court says that, according to The Constitution, there is marriage equality. End of story. Do your job, or quit your job. You can't refuse to do your job while insisting to keep your job. You are not allowed to bring your religious prejudices to work.

T

[sdanielmcev]

No stay should have been granted. A stay implies that this clerk has a case that is worthy. It is not! That she might prevail. She will not. I think the judge doesn't want to offend the big time conservative republican base from which he draws his support. This is not supposed to happen. Her financial backers are big time repubs. And of course has this Christian woman thought about the words of Christ, "Judge not, lest you be judged." "Render unto ceasar what is cesar's" (means you are not to use religion in politics) and on her own divorce doesn't Christ say that is NO NO? Yeah I am judging but I am sure I am hypocrite! Maybe sinful.

The judge is appointed for life. And you left one out; "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Most of the anti Davis crowd here seem to fail all three sayings.