Lesbian couple, like Kentucky clerk, standing up for beliefs

[chuckd]

I see many of you never read the First Amendment, which says in part...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

If forcing her to issue a marriage license forces her to violate her beliefs, she is then being deprived of her First Amendment right.

Now I have to go to Loei tonight so when all of you are through beating your collective chests, I will respond...maybe...perhaps...Inshallah.

[daoyai]

I see many of you never read the First Amendment, which says in part...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

If forcing her to issue a marriage license forces her to violate her beliefs, she is then being deprived of her First Amendment right.

Now I have to go to Loei tonight so when all of you are through beating your collective chests, I will respond...maybe...perhaps...Inshallah.

No one is asking the clerk to perform the ceremony, only to issue a document that is within the scope of her employment duties. She is grandstanding for gawd and jebus, her ability to exercise her superstition is unhindered.

[Ulysses G.]

I do find it EXTREMELY offensive to watch 2 guys kissing an cannoodling in public

Most straight men can sympathize with you on that, but if we can snog on the streets, they should be able to do it too. However, after living in Thailand for a few decades, I don't think ANYONE should be making out in public. Get a room if you need to. That would solve that problem.

[stevenl]

I see many of you never read the First Amendment, which says in part...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

If forcing her to issue a marriage license forces her to violate her beliefs, she is then being deprived of her First Amendment right.

Now I have to go to Loei tonight so when all of you are through beating your collective chests, I will respond...maybe...perhaps...Inshallah.

That text is clearly not in violation of her beliefs.

[FritsSikkink]

I see many of you never read the First Amendment, which says in part...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

If forcing her to issue a marriage license forces her to violate her beliefs, she is then being deprived of her First Amendment right.

Now I have to go to Loei tonight so when all of you are through beating your collective chests, I will respond...maybe...perhaps...Inshallah.

she isn't forced to do it, she can quit her job if she doesn't like it anymore

[Chicog]

She is depriving others of their constitutional rights as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

I'd that is OK with you Chuck, can we take another look at the 2nd Amendment?

Edited September 3, 2015 by Chicog

[chuckd]

She is depriving others of their constitutional rights as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

I'd that is OK with you Chuck, can we take another look at the 2nd Amendment?

The Second Amendment has been done to death.

I need some European and Aussie instructions on how to read the US Constitution.

Why is what she is doing any different than Obama's failure to follow various laws over the last six+ years.

How is her refusal to issue a license to a few people any more of an impact than the decision by the current Administration to smuggle illegally obtained weapons into Mexico (Fast and Furious)?

What about the San Francisco sanctuary city decision that has already resulted in the death of at least one person? Somebody is choosing not to enforce the immigration laws and a violent killer is on the streets.

So two couples are inconvenienced and might have to drive 30-40 miles to another jurisdiction until this is all settled.

I was raised in West Texas. We used to make a 150 mile round trip on Saturday night to eat the best chocolate meringue pie you ever tasted.

Frankly I see all this as much ado about nothing. You want the license (I said nothing about her performing any ceremonies) then drive to the nearest jurisdiction where you can easily obtain one...or wait until the County Commissioners can sort this out.

[Thakkar]

On a lighter note, get this:

Ms. Davis gave birth to twins five months after marrying her second husband. So she was an adulteress while married to her first husband.*

It gets worse. The twins weren't even her second husband's kids. While married to husband #1, she was having sexy times with the guy who would later become her third husband. Even though the second husband adopted the twins, the marriage didn't last and she then married the actual father of her twins. But that didn't last either and she's now married to husband #4.

Yet, she says she's worried about going to hell for issuing same sex marriage licences. Frankly, it looks to me like she's already in some kinda goofy hell.

*http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times?src=usn_tw

T

Edited September 3, 2015 by Thakkar

[Chicog]

She is depriving others of their constitutional rights as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

I'd that is OK with you Chuck, can we take another look at the 2nd Amendment?

The Second Amendment has been done to death.

I need some European and Aussie instructions on how to read the US Constitution.

Why is what she is doing any different than Obama's failure to follow various laws over the last six+ years.

How is her refusal to issue a license to a few people any more of an impact than the decision by the current Administration to smuggle illegally obtained weapons into Mexico (Fast and Furious)?

What about the San Francisco sanctuary city decision that has already resulted in the death of at least one person? Somebody is choosing not to enforce the immigration laws and a violent killer is on the streets.

So two couples are inconvenienced and might have to drive 30-40 miles to another jurisdiction until this is all settled.

I was raised in West Texas. We used to make a 150 mile round trip on Saturday night to eat the best chocolate meringue pie you ever tasted.

Frankly I see all this as much ado about nothing. You want the license (I said nothing about her performing any ceremonies) then drive to the nearest jurisdiction where you can easily obtain one...or wait until the County Commissioners can sort this out.

Good so her quasi-religious, hypocritical posturing really doesn't merit constitutional protection then.

[chuckd]

On a lighter note, get this:

Ms. Davis gave birth to twins five months after marrying her second husband. So she was an adulteress while married to her first husband.*

It gets worse. The twins weren't even her second husband's kids. While married to husband #1, she was having sexy times with the guy who would later become her third husband. Even though the second husband adopted the twins, the marriage didn't last and she then married the actual father of her twins. But that didn't last either and she's now married to husband #4.

Yet, she says she's worried about going to hell for issuing same sex marriage licences. Frankly, it looks to me like she's already in some kinda goofy hell.

*http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times?src=usn_tw

T

Well, she's a Democrat. Were you expecting somebody of high moral character?

[Thakkar]

On a lighter note, get this:

Ms. Davis gave birth to twins five months after marrying her second husband. So she was an adulteress while married to her first husband.*

It gets worse. The twins weren't even her second husband's kids. While married to husband #1, she was having sexy times with the guy who would later become her third husband. Even though the second husband adopted the twins, the marriage didn't last and she then married the actual father of her twins. But that didn't last either and she's now married to husband #4.

Yet, she says she's worried about going to hell for issuing same sex marriage licences. Frankly, it looks to me like she's already in some kinda goofy hell.

*http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/01/kentucky-clerk-fighting-gay-marriage-has-wed-four-times?src=usn_tw

T

Well, she's a Democrat. Were you expecting somebody of high moral character?

Hey! No fair! If Davis gets to represent all Democrats, then underage sister diddler Josh Duggar gets to represent all Republicans.

T

[Tep]

She is depriving others of their constitutional rights as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

I'd that is OK with you Chuck, can we take another look at the 2nd Amendment?

The Second Amendment has been done to death.

I need some European and Aussie instructions on how to read the US Constitution.

Why is what she is doing any different than Obama's failure to follow various laws over the last six+ years.

How is her refusal to issue a license to a few people any more of an impact than the decision by the current Administration to smuggle illegally obtained weapons into Mexico (Fast and Furious)?

What about the San Francisco sanctuary city decision that has already resulted in the death of at least one person? Somebody is choosing not to enforce the immigration laws and a violent killer is on the streets.

So two couples are inconvenienced and might have to drive 30-40 miles to another jurisdiction until this is all settled.

I was raised in West Texas. We used to make a 150 mile round trip on Saturday night to eat the best chocolate meringue pie you ever tasted.

Frankly I see all this as much ado about nothing. You want the license (I said nothing about her performing any ceremonies) then drive to the nearest jurisdiction where you can easily obtain one...or wait until the County Commissioners can sort this out.

On the one hand you have a majority opinion of the Supreme Court and on the other hand you have the analysis of constitutional rights above. To paraphrase another ignorant dame, "Let them eat chocolate meringue". Seems like the Federal Judge also sides with the SCOTUS majority and not with you. She and not President Obama, nor the Mayor of San Francisco is now sitting in jail. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

I don't think we should take our instruction in Constitutional Law from you any more.

[Trouble]

This is ridiculous and an embarrassment to the USA. If this county clerk feels she can't issue licenses as per the law of the land, fine. That is her choice--as a private citizen, not as a government official. She needs to be impeached immediately so someone who follows the law can fill the position.

I saw her on tv, and she told a couple that they were forcing their beliefs on her. It is more that she is forcing her beliefs on them.

No what is DISGUSTING is the fact that people are NOW FORCED to accept beliefs that are deemed offensive too others but they NOW FORCED to accept it.

For example while I dont care if gay people do their stuff behind closed doors, I do find it EXTREMELY offensive to watch 2 guys kissing an cannoodling in public be it religious belief or not it makes me wanna puke that is just the way it is but of course I am homophobic a bigot and any other names they want to call me but the truth TO ME AND MILLION OF OTHERS the thought of having sex with another man is disgusting but you expect me to be forced to accept that SORRY aint gonna happen.,

Now this lady is being forced against her beliefs to do something she does not believe in, I agree with her she has that right to refuse

So don't do it.

And it really does not matter whether you think she has the right to refuse, the court has ruled she does not have that right.

Its a B.u.l.l.s.h.i.t law forced on majority of people who did not vote it in

It's not a bulls**t law but a court decision based on law. Whether you like it or not the court has ruled. Furthermore, times they are a changing. Had there been a vote on the right of same sex couples to marry it is very likely that it would have passed. All the polls showed that a majority favor allowing same sex couples to marry. The PewResearchCenter has the statistical polling data if you care to read it;

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

As was seen in Ireland, a Catholic country, acceptance is kind of a generational thing. The Pew study shows that older people tend to be against while younger tend to be for. White mainline Protestants, Catholics, and the unaffiliated tend to be favorable about it while Black Protestants and White evangelicals tend to be against. Generationally Millennials, Generation X tend to be favorable towards it while Silent Generation and Baby Boomers tend to be against however the attitudes of all these groups has increased favorably over the last decade.

So actually you are in the minority as is this women in Kentucky. She is a public official and if she can't follow the "law of the land" then she should resign. Sorry but following "God's Law" is a lame excuse as I am sure God has not communicated with this bitch recently.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Trouble

[Publicus]

This US District Court judge is a Republican son of a very conservative Republican former US Senator from Kentucky appointed by GW Bush so I'd though he might go easier on the anarchist Davis, but he turns out to be a true Republican party judge, i.e., a hangin' judge of those who defy the rule of secular law.

Good for the judge.

Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Jailed for Contempt

The Kentucky county clerk who made herself a national celebrity by refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses was jailed Thursday for contempt of court.

U.S. District Judge David Bunning, noting that individual beliefs simply cannot be allowed to supersede the court’s authority, ordered her held behind bars until she agrees to do her job.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis was taken into custody by U.S. marshals, according to reporters on the scene.

There was testimony about fundraising efforts on Davis' behalf, apparently a factor in the judge's decision not to impose financial penalties.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/03/kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-jailed-for-contempt

Civil contempt of court is the equivalent of a felony crime so Davis loses almost all of her Constitutional rights while in contempt, to include most instances of a jury trial. The point is that while a person denies the Constitution, the person forfeits (almost) all Constitutional protections.

The US District Court had told her to comply with the Constitution. The US Court of Appeals told her to comply with the Constitution. SCOTUS told her to comply with the Constitution. Now the anarchist sits where she rightfully belongs, in a jail cell.

[Publicus]

She is depriving others of their constitutional rights as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

I'd that is OK with you Chuck, can we take another look at the 2nd Amendment?

The Second Amendment has been done to death.

I need some European and Aussie instructions on how to read the US Constitution.

Why is what she is doing any different than Obama's failure to follow various laws over the last six+ years.

How is her refusal to issue a license to a few people any more of an impact than the decision by the current Administration to smuggle illegally obtained weapons into Mexico (Fast and Furious)?

What about the San Francisco sanctuary city decision that has already resulted in the death of at least one person? Somebody is choosing not to enforce the immigration laws and a violent killer is on the streets.

So two couples are inconvenienced and might have to drive 30-40 miles to another jurisdiction until this is all settled.

I was raised in West Texas. We used to make a 150 mile round trip on Saturday night to eat the best chocolate meringue pie you ever tasted.

Frankly I see all this as much ado about nothing. You want the license (I said nothing about her performing any ceremonies) then drive to the nearest jurisdiction where you can easily obtain one...or wait until the County Commissioners can sort this out.

On the one hand you have a majority opinion of the Supreme Court and on the other hand you have the analysis of constitutional rights above. To paraphrase another ignorant dame, "Let them eat chocolate meringue". Seems like the Federal Judge also sides with the SCOTUS majority and not with you. She and not President Obama, nor the Mayor of San Francisco is now sitting in jail. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

I don't think we should take our instruction in Constitutional Law from you any more.

Post well said and done thx.

[JDGRUEN]

The solution to the problem is to Eliminate pre acquired marriage licenses ... Post Marriage registration is the proper answer. Any couple can get married - then for legal registration purposes to establish later family law rights, then that couple should see a notary public or a lawyer -- go on line and register the marriage with the attorney certifying that the people involved are of legal age and for any other Identification Requirements ... This kind of on line system should be developed by each state and sanctioned for use ... Copies get electronically sent to the County Clerks office and the data contained therein is automatically deposited in the proper databases. In this day an age there is no need to do otherwise. Required tests for syphilis were done away with many years ago -- a pre acquired marriage license can too... One might ask --what happens to all the marriage licenses that are never used because the couple does not end up getting married? Just toss them out? Seems that a pre acquired marriage license is a unnecessary action.

Then there are millions over the years of Common Law Marriages - most of which are never registered and never done with a license. In some states one of the couple can sue the other for divorce simultaneously with a claim substantiating a state of common law marriage. And each state that has Common Law Marriage statues has a different set of rules as to how common law marriages come about.

Since constancy of why a pre acquired marriage license is totally lacking, so Why Not Do Away with the whole thing? POST Marriage Registration ... as described above... is the answer. The computer software program cannot invoke a religious objection.

Also all licensing to conduct marriages should be done away with too. No need for it ... People should be able to get married in a church by a preacher, by a Justice of the peace, by a Judge or by their best friend or Mom and Dad. Just another out dated licensing system.

My post is not a joke ... I ask the question WHY NOT?.... Thai people get married all the time - just sit and everyone comes by to say a blessing or something. Then they go to the government office and register it ... Works well enough.

[geriatrickid]

I see many of you never read the First Amendment, which says in part...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

If forcing her to issue a marriage license forces her to violate her beliefs, she is then being deprived of her First Amendment right.

Now I have to go to Loei tonight so when all of you are through beating your collective chests, I will respond...maybe...perhaps...Inshallah.

You are wrong.

Multiple courts including the SCOTUS disagree with your legal interpretation.

All of a sudden this 3X divorced member of a fringe religious group, took it upon herself to apply her religious views to her legal duties and you consider this to be a case of upholding the 1st Amendment? And you expect to have your defense of her to be taken seriously?

Her right to religious freedom was not impinged because her deputies could have issued the licenses. She explicitly forbid her deputies from issuing license. The judge explained the law to her and gave her a 2nd opportunity to obey the law. She refused. When she was elected to the position, she was well aware of what the job would require. Yet, she took the job, and swore her oath of duty. Now, this cultist who belongs to a small religious sect of approximately 14,000, demands that her interpretation of the infallibility of the bible be obeyed. She refused to issue licenses to heterosexuals. Her right to hold ignorant religious views did not give her the right to deny the heterosexuals their marriage licenses. There was a dereliction of duty and a violation of her oath of office.

Thankfully, this unchaste crudity has not been allowed to mingle her religion and her state duties. Her own apostolic church defines marriage as being inviolable. Miss Hypocrite says her 3 divorces are ok because she has since found Jesus and is forgiven. Indeed.

To make matters worse, this abomination is allowed to "minister" to prison inmates. Uneducated, and with no formal training in religious studies, she is spreading her cultist religious views. Nice.

[geriatrickid]

As a reminder, both homosexuals and heterosexuals were refused marriage licenses.

[CWMcMurray]

This is ridiculous and an embarrassment to the USA. If this county clerk feels she can't issue licenses as per the law of the land, fine. That is her choice--as a private citizen, not as a government official. She needs to be impeached immediately so someone who follows the law can fill the position.

I saw her on tv, and she told a couple that they were forcing their beliefs on her. It is more that she is forcing her beliefs on them.

No what is DISGUSTING is the fact that people are NOW FORCED to accept beliefs that are deemed offensive too others but they NOW FORCED to accept it.

For example while I dont care if gay people do their stuff behind closed doors, I do find it EXTREMELY offensive to watch 2 guys kissing an cannoodling in public be it religious belief or not it makes me wanna puke that is just the way it is but of course I am homophobic a bigot and any other names they want to call me but the truth TO ME AND MILLION OF OTHERS the thought of having sex with another man is disgusting but you expect me to be forced to accept that SORRY aint gonna happen.,

Now this lady is being forced against her beliefs to do something she does not believe in, I agree with her she has that right to refuse

No one is forcing her to do anything ..

If her personal beliefs prevent her from fulfilling the obligations of her Job, she should resign

It is not acceptable to refuse to do her job because of her personal beliefs

[JDGRUEN]

The lady in question has a full right to exercise Civil Disobedience even while in public office... others in the U.S. have done so at other times on different issues... so have others in other times done so around the world. She is now being held accountable for her attempt to change the situation by exercising Civil Disobedience ... Now she has no power to do anything. That is a consequence she has to bear and she is bearing it. I see no reason for sensible people to deride her and issue crude sarcastic statements about her. But the pop off crude minded cynics flourish on TVF ...

Her actions may well have brought about enough attention for her state and other states to consider changes in the way marriage licenses are issued and perhaps not issued prior at all...

In a day and age of extreme use of computers for everything - even government supplied on line tax filing ... there is absolutely no need for a clerk at a country office to issue a license ... There is no need for a pre acquired marriage license period ... Register it after the fact.

This lady's actions hopefully will generate a call to change the systems to do what I suggest all over America. Why have confrontation and controversy due to the insistence on using a 100 year old system?

Automobile registration can be done by mail and on line in America... Computers do it. Re-issuance of a new drivers license can be done on line - if not lapsed.

But I strongly suspect that my suggestions will be heatedly rejected by the homosexual community here on TVF and in America because it will never be enough to have equal rights -- it will only be enough to them when every American is FORCED to EMBRACE them Full Frontally, their mode of life and their beliefs. Peaceful Coexistence with the rabid portion of the Gay Community of America will NEVER BE ENOUGH - even with full equal legal rights. What will maybe be enough is FULL Acceptance of their beliefs and form of life at every level. Americans will not be allowed to have their own beliefs otherwise - EVEN When compliance with the law is done ... Watch and see over the coming years and months.

[Seastallion]

The solution to the problem is to Eliminate pre acquired marriage licenses ... Post Marriage registration is the proper answer. Any couple can get married - then for legal registration purposes to establish later family law rights, then that couple should see a notary public or a lawyer -- go on line and register the marriage with the attorney certifying that the people involved are of legal age and for any other Identification Requirements ... This kind of on line system should be developed by each state and sanctioned for use ... Copies get electronically sent to the County Clerks office and the data contained therein is automatically deposited in the proper databases. In this day an age there is no need to do otherwise. Required tests for syphilis were done away with many years ago -- a pre acquired marriage license can too... One might ask --what happens to all the marriage licenses that are never used because the couple does not end up getting married? Just toss them out? Seems that a pre acquired marriage license is a unnecessary action.

Then there are millions over the years of Common Law Marriages - most of which are never registered and never done with a license. In some states one of the couple can sue the other for divorce simultaneously with a claim substantiating a state of common law marriage. And each state that has Common Law Marriage statues has a different set of rules as to how common law marriages come about.

Since constancy of why a pre acquired marriage license is totally lacking, so Why Not Do Away with the whole thing? POST Marriage Registration ... as described above... is the answer. The computer software program cannot invoke a religious objection.

Also all licensing to conduct marriages should be done away with too. No need for it ... People should be able to get married in a church by a preacher, by a Justice of the peace, by a Judge or by their best friend or Mom and Dad. Just another out dated licensing system.

My post is not a joke ... I ask the question WHY NOT?.... Thai people get married all the time - just sit and everyone comes by to say a blessing or something. Then they go to the government office and register it ... Works well enough.

No, the solution to the problem is for employees/servants of the state/county to separate their religious beliefs from their civic duties.

Issuing a piece of paper with a stamp is not forbidden in any religion that I am aware of.

[JDGRUEN]

The solution to the problem is to Eliminate pre acquired marriage licenses ... Post Marriage registration is the proper answer. Any couple can get married - then for legal registration purposes to establish later family law rights, then that couple should see a notary public or a lawyer -- go on line and register the marriage with the attorney certifying that the people involved are of legal age and for any other Identification Requirements ... This kind of on line system should be developed by each state and sanctioned for use ... Copies get electronically sent to the County Clerks office and the data contained therein is automatically deposited in the proper databases. In this day an age there is no need to do otherwise. Required tests for syphilis were done away with many years ago -- a pre acquired marriage license can too... One might ask --what happens to all the marriage licenses that are never used because the couple does not end up getting married? Just toss them out? Seems that a pre acquired marriage license is a unnecessary action.

Then there are millions over the years of Common Law Marriages - most of which are never registered and never done with a license. In some states one of the couple can sue the other for divorce simultaneously with a claim substantiating a state of common law marriage. And each state that has Common Law Marriage statues has a different set of rules as to how common law marriages come about.

Since constancy of why a pre acquired marriage license is totally lacking, so Why Not Do Away with the whole thing? POST Marriage Registration ... as described above... is the answer. The computer software program cannot invoke a religious objection.

Also all licensing to conduct marriages should be done away with too. No need for it ... People should be able to get married in a church by a preacher, by a Justice of the peace, by a Judge or by their best friend or Mom and Dad. Just another out dated licensing system.

My post is not a joke ... I ask the question WHY NOT?.... Thai people get married all the time - just sit and everyone comes by to say a blessing or something. Then they go to the government office and register it ... Works well enough.

No, the solution to the problem is for employees/servants of the state/county to separate their religious beliefs from their civic duties.

Issuing a piece of paper with a stamp is not forbidden in any religion that I am aware of.

As I said in another post forced compliance to the LAW is never going to be acceptable to the rabid leftists and gays... My plan gives FULL LEGAL and EQUAL rights ... but full Legal and Equal rights are not enough for the control freaks - who feel compelled to force people to believe a certain way. FULL FORCED EMBRACING of their beliefs and bowing down to the LEFTISTS Gods will only be enough.

Forcing people to accept Leftists and Gay beliefs is no different that her act of denying marriage licenses to gays.

Edited September 4, 2015 by JDGRUEN

[Seastallion]

The solution to the problem is to Eliminate pre acquired marriage licenses ... Post Marriage registration is the proper answer. Any couple can get married - then for legal registration purposes to establish later family law rights, then that couple should see a notary public or a lawyer -- go on line and register the marriage with the attorney certifying that the people involved are of legal age and for any other Identification Requirements ... This kind of on line system should be developed by each state and sanctioned for use ... Copies get electronically sent to the County Clerks office and the data contained therein is automatically deposited in the proper databases. In this day an age there is no need to do otherwise. Required tests for syphilis were done away with many years ago -- a pre acquired marriage license can too... One might ask --what happens to all the marriage licenses that are never used because the couple does not end up getting married? Just toss them out? Seems that a pre acquired marriage license is a unnecessary action.

Then there are millions over the years of Common Law Marriages - most of which are never registered and never done with a license. In some states one of the couple can sue the other for divorce simultaneously with a claim substantiating a state of common law marriage. And each state that has Common Law Marriage statues has a different set of rules as to how common law marriages come about.

Since constancy of why a pre acquired marriage license is totally lacking, so Why Not Do Away with the whole thing? POST Marriage Registration ... as described above... is the answer. The computer software program cannot invoke a religious objection.

Also all licensing to conduct marriages should be done away with too. No need for it ... People should be able to get married in a church by a preacher, by a Justice of the peace, by a Judge or by their best friend or Mom and Dad. Just another out dated licensing system.

My post is not a joke ... I ask the question WHY NOT?.... Thai people get married all the time - just sit and everyone comes by to say a blessing or something. Then they go to the government office and register it ... Works well enough.

No, the solution to the problem is for employees/servants of the state/county to separate their religious beliefs from their civic duties.

Issuing a piece of paper with a stamp is not forbidden in any religion that I am aware of.

As I said in another post forced compliance to the LAW is never going to be acceptable to the rabid leftists and gays... My plan gives equal legal and EQUAL rights ... but full equal EQUAL rights are not enough for the control freaks - who feel compelled to force people to believe a certain way. FULL FORCED EMBRACING of their beliefs and bowing down to the LEFTISTS Gods will only be enough.

You, like Davis, miss the point completely.

NOBODY is forcing Davis to believe in anything! NOBODY is forcing her to do anything against her religion......Unless her religion tells her to not issue a stamp on a piece of paper. I would be very surprised if her religion has that prohibition.

Why change the system of an entire nation just because a few nutters can not see the illogic and the inconsistencies of their stance?

As JT pointed out somewhere, if a gay county clerk refused to issue licences to straight couples because of his religion....would you countenance that or suggest that the system be altered to cater for his dumb odd attitude?

[smotherb]

This is ridiculous and an embarrassment to the USA. If this county clerk feels she can't issue licenses as per the law of the land, fine. That is her choice--as a private citizen, not as a government official. She needs to be impeached immediately so someone who follows the law can fill the position.

I saw her on tv, and she told a couple that they were forcing their beliefs on her. It is more that she is forcing her beliefs on them.

While it is true impeachment is required to remove her from her county clerk position, it is not a shoe-in. It is the Kentucky legislature which would vote for impeachment and many in the legislature have heard "God's Word" too.

[geriatrickid]

This is ridiculous and an embarrassment to the USA. If this county clerk feels she can't issue licenses as per the law of the land, fine. That is her choice--as a private citizen, not as a government official. She needs to be impeached immediately so someone who follows the law can fill the position.

I saw her on tv, and she told a couple that they were forcing their beliefs on her. It is more that she is forcing her beliefs on them.

While it is true impeachment is required to remove her from her county clerk position, it is not a shoe-in. It is the Kentucky legislature which would vote for impeachment and many in the legislature have heard "God's Word" too.

Even worse, this unchaste harlot is still collecting her salary despite. Rather hypocritical of the state legislators who constantly claim that they are for good government, see nothing wrong in allowing this harlot, who has disobeyed a rightful legal order to continue to collect her salary. What I do not understand is how anyone can even try to defend the lying clerk. She took an oath of office and she has broken it.

30A.020 Oath of clerk and deputies.

Every clerk and deputy, in addition to the oath prescribed by Section 228 of the Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take the following oath in presence of the Circuit Court: "I, ....., do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of .............. County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God." The fact that the oath has been administered shall be entered on the record of the Circuit Court. Effective: January 2, 1978 History: Created 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 21, sec. 2, effective January 2, 1978.

I am also astounded that her fellow apostolic church members have so quickly looked the other way in respect to her sexually deviant and morally depraved ways. The apostolic church holds that the bible is infallible and that its every word must be obeyed.How this woman, a self admitted multiple fornicator who did not respect the sanctity of marriage nor obey her husband as the bible commands, has been made into a pillar of the church, a beacon of moral guidance defies logic.

I expect many Christians, particularly those who do not attempt to force their religious views on others are offended. So much for the separation of church and state. It seems that Kentucky is a place that time left behind like Afghanistan and Pakistan.I can see now why thse hillbilly people always show up on "Cops" with their crystal meth and feuding cousins/wives.

[Tep]

I see many of you never read the First Amendment, which says in part...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

If forcing her to issue a marriage license forces her to violate her beliefs, she is then being deprived of her First Amendment right.

Now I have to go to Loei tonight so when all of you are through beating your collective chests, I will respond...maybe...perhaps...Inshallah.

Again, the Supreme Court does not agree with you. Courtesy of CNN this morning https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-473.ZS.html Garcetti v. Ceballos 2006 re the 1st Amendment rights of public employees.

[Asiantravel]

This is an obnoxious behaviour by a person who is essentially putting herself above the opinions and decision of the US Supreme Court. What right does she have to do that?

Okay she has a severe problem on religious grounds but If it is that difficult for her to exercise her duty according to what is now the law of the country, She should simply resign her position.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Asiantravel

[Asiantravel]

This is ridiculous and an embarrassment to the USA. If this county clerk feels she can't issue licenses as per the law of the land, fine. That is her choice--as a private citizen, not as a government official. She needs to be impeached immediately so someone who follows the law can fill the position.

I saw her on tv, and she told a couple that they were forcing their beliefs on her. It is more that she is forcing her beliefs on them.

No what is DISGUSTING is the fact that people are NOW FORCED to accept beliefs that are deemed offensive too others but they NOW FORCED to accept it.

For example while I dont care if gay people do their stuff behind closed doors, I do find it EXTREMELY offensive to watch 2 guys kissing an cannoodling in public be it religious belief or not it makes me wanna puke that is just the way it is but of course I am homophobic a bigot and any other names they want to call me but the truth TO ME AND MILLION OF OTHERS the thought of having sex with another man is disgusting but you expect me to be forced to accept that SORRY aint gonna happen.,

Now this lady is being forced against her beliefs to do something she does not believe in, I agree with her she has that right to refuse

But equally why can't you simply have your thoughts about what same-sex couples do together in the bedroom behind your " closed doors " as you put it? Why is it so important for you to make such a big issue of it in public?

Edited September 4, 2015 by Asiantravel

[smotherb]

This is ridiculous and an embarrassment to the USA. If this county clerk feels she can't issue licenses as per the law of the land, fine. That is her choice--as a private citizen, not as a government official. She needs to be impeached immediately so someone who follows the law can fill the position.

I saw her on tv, and she told a couple that they were forcing their beliefs on her. It is more that she is forcing her beliefs on them.

While it is true impeachment is required to remove her from her county clerk position, it is not a shoe-in. It is the Kentucky legislature which would vote for impeachment and many in the legislature have heard "God's Word" too.

Even worse, this unchaste harlot is still collecting her salary despite. Rather hypocritical of the state legislators who constantly claim that they are for good government, see nothing wrong in allowing this harlot, who has disobeyed a rightful legal order to continue to collect her salary. What I do not understand is how anyone can even try to defend the lying clerk. She took an oath of office and she has broken it.

30A.020 Oath of clerk and deputies.

Every clerk and deputy, in addition to the oath prescribed by Section 228 of the Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take the following oath in presence of the Circuit Court: "I, ....., do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of .............. County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God." The fact that the oath has been administered shall be entered on the record of the Circuit Court. Effective: January 2, 1978 History: Created 1976 (1st Extra. Sess.) Ky. Acts ch. 21, sec. 2, effective January 2, 1978.

I am also astounded that her fellow apostolic church members have so quickly looked the other way in respect to her sexually deviant and morally depraved ways. The apostolic church holds that the bible is infallible and that its every word must be obeyed.How this woman, a self admitted multiple fornicator who did not respect the sanctity of marriage nor obey her husband as the bible commands, has been made into a pillar of the church, a beacon of moral guidance defies logic.

I expect many Christians, particularly those who do not attempt to force their religious views on others are offended. So much for the separation of church and state. It seems that Kentucky is a place that time left behind like Afghanistan and Pakistan.I can see now why thse hillbilly people always show up on "Cops" with their crystal meth and feuding cousins/wives.

I take it you don't think she has the right to withhold the marriage license, huh?

[smotherb]

This is ridiculous and an embarrassment to the USA. If this county clerk feels she can't issue licenses as per the law of the land, fine. That is her choice--as a private citizen, not as a government official. She needs to be impeached immediately so someone who follows the law can fill the position.

I saw her on tv, and she told a couple that they were forcing their beliefs on her. It is more that she is forcing her beliefs on them.

No what is DISGUSTING is the fact that people are NOW FORCED to accept beliefs that are deemed offensive too others but they NOW FORCED to accept it.

For example while I dont care if gay people do their stuff behind closed doors, I do find it EXTREMELY offensive to watch 2 guys kissing an cannoodling in public be it religious belief or not it makes me wanna puke that is just the way it is but of course I am homophobic a bigot and any other names they want to call me but the truth TO ME AND MILLION OF OTHERS the thought of having sex with another man is disgusting but you expect me to be forced to accept that SORRY aint gonna happen.,

Now this lady is being forced against her beliefs to do something she does not believe in, I agree with her she has that right to refuse

What right to refuse? Even the first amendment does not give people the right to hold their religious beliefs over the law--and that is especially true of government servants sworn to do their jobs..