Saga surrounding Kentucky clerk may not be over

[Seastallion]

Either I wasn't clear or you didn't understand. No worry.

Every time I am stupid enough to make a seemingly innocuous post on one of these threads it goes pear shaped.

I will sign off this overly emotional thread with only this one question.

Can somebody tell me which specific LAW, not judicial decision, was broken by Ms. Davis?

Who said she broke any law? It IS about a judicial decision.

Her offense was, and apparently still is, contempt of court. She was ordered to issue licenses and she refused. She was gaoled "holding the keys" and was released on condition that she not prevent her deputies issuing licenses. She is not preventing her deputies, but she has altered the licenses so that they are now arguably (and in her view) invalid. What's the point of issuing invalid licenses?

[smotherb]

Either I wasn't clear or you didn't understand. No worry.

Every time I am stupid enough to make a seemingly innocuous post on one of these threads it goes pear shaped.

I will sign off this overly emotional thread with only this one question.

Can somebody tell me which specific LAW, not judicial decision, was broken by Ms. Davis?

She swore an oath to uphold the law. Here is the Kentucky oath of office for elected officials:

Section 228 of the Kentucky Constitution

I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of..... according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State, nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God.

Please note, other than the archaic preponderance of denial of dueling activity, that 1) she swore to uphold the constitution of the US, and 2) that she would execute her office “according to law.”

[Publicus]

Either I wasn't clear or you didn't understand. No worry.

Every time I am stupid enough to make a seemingly innocuous post on one of these threads it goes pear shaped.

I will sign off this overly emotional thread with only this one question.

Can somebody tell me which specific LAW, not judicial decision, was broken by Ms. Davis?

A number of posts have made it more than obvious. It had always been obvious to the many of us over on this side.

One hopes the posts have been helpful.

[chuckd]

Thanks to all your input. Too bad nobody could come up with an actual law that was broken.

And with this I bid you all a fond adieu.

Edited September 20, 2015 by chuckd

[bangkapi]

Let's face the facts. Marriage, itself, is kind of a silly second-hand institution created and backed by governments and religions.

It only serves the purpose of enslaving or domesticating the male and is totally unnatural as people are not naturally monogamous.

There is so much media and educational propaganda encouraging marriage and family formation that gays feel the need to join in the fray.

[Jingthing]

No, there is no need to marry. Only a choice like for everyone else.

GLBT Americans want to be treated equally under the law.

What some people don't get is that the GLBT civil rights movement in the USA isn't nearly over.

The marriage equality win was HUGE of course, but there remain many fights for non-discrimination treatment in such matters as employment and housing, etc. In a number of U.S. states people can be legally fired with just having a GLBT identity as the only reason.

[uksomchai]

Good morning I would like to enter my cat for the Crufts dog show.

I'm sorry sir but Crufts is a dog show.

Yes I realize that but I don't like dogs only cats

But sir there are many cat shows you can enter

I know but I want to enter Crufts and it's my human right to do so !

But sir the definition of a dog is any member of the Canine family. Cats are members of the Feline family

Yes I know but if gay people can get the definition of marriage changed from being between a man and a woman then I demand you change the definition of dog to include cats, I'm a minority and it's my human right !

And there you have gay marriage in a nutshell !

Where is this nonsense going to stop people ?

As said but just ignored tolerance and respect for other people's lifestyles and feelings is a two way street or should be !

[Jingthing]

If that's the intellectual level of the bigoted backlash against marriage equality, cats and dogs, WOW ... pathetic!

BTW, gay is NOT a lifestyle and this isn't the 1970s!

Edited September 21, 2015 by Jingthing

[Publicus]

Good morning I would like to enter my cat for the Crufts dog show.

I'm sorry sir but Crufts is a dog show.

Yes I realize that but I don't like dogs only cats

But sir there are many cat shows you can enter

I know but I want to enter Crufts and it's my human right to do so !

But sir the definition of a dog is any member of the Canine family. Cats are members of the Feline family

Yes I know but if gay people can get the definition of marriage changed from being between a man and a woman then I demand you change the definition of dog to include cats, I'm a minority and it's my human right !

And there you have gay marriage in a nutshell !

Where is this nonsense going to stop people ?

As said but just ignored tolerance and respect for other people's lifestyles and feelings is a two way street or should be !

And there you have gay marriage in a nutshell !

And there you have gay marriage in a nutcase.

Laws and a given constitution are organic too but they are written by humans to apply to other humans in society. Which takes us to the cat owner, who is the human that is highly confused and in the wrong venue too. Cats and dogs live together very well besides thank you.

SCOTUS and the Constitution make clear exactly who in American society has to acquire or develop not only tolerance, but the virtues of civilisation itself.

Never heard of canine civilisation or feline civilisation. Strange as it may sound, however, there is a Nascar civilisation.

[uksomchai]

If that's the intellectual level of the bigoted backlash against marriage equality, cats and dogs, WOW ... pathetic!

BTW, gay is NOT a lifestyle and this isn't the 1970s!

So as it is simply against the law then the woman deserves everything she gets because it is against the law. it never enters your head that throwing a woman in jail because of this law is wrong doesn't come into it ?

So by that very argument where homosexuality is illegal then the gays in that country deserve everything they get also ? Do they also deserve to get stoned to death or thrown from tall buildings ?

Of course they don't even if that is what the law says

You can't see that forcing the world to change the very definition of a word is wrong no matter what the cause is. Hence the cats and dogs analogy which was totally missed by you.

As said you demand that everyone bows to your demands yet have a zero tolerance for others that do not agree with you

Which shows who the real bigots are.

I personally have no objection to gays getting married as I have a very much live and let live outlook. I also tend to respect other peoples beliefs and lifestyles.

What I don't do is try to FORCE my choices on other people especially when their beliefs do not agree with mine regardless of what the law says which makes me and you very different people indeed

If I go to a veggie BBQ I will eat a veggie burger and make the most of the night. The people wanting this woman thrown in jail will demand that they are served a steak and to hell with the veggies beliefs

I have found that like the climate change activists the gay rights activists cannot be debated as they simply scream homophobia to shut down debate. They just cannot debate period !

[Jingthing]

Calm down, dude. I never said I want the bigot lady thrown in jail. I want her to do her job and respect the civil rights of the people who seek her GOVERNMENT services, or if she is incompetent to do that, to RESIGN.

The "debate" on whether same sex marriage is LEGAL or not is 100 percent over. It is 100 percent legal in all 50 states. You can "debate" whether you like that or not, but that's not really relevant to this topic.

Yes of course the bigot lady is an anti-gay bigot because she claims to be a pure fundamentalist Christian but applies that ONLY against gay people in her job, and no other people that would be just as non-deserving of service by a pure fundamentalist Christian regime. But she doesn't work for a Christian fundamentalist regime. She works as GOVERNMENT CLERK.

You can choose to be "tolerant" of anti-gay BIGOTS, but no, don't ask that of GLBT people. We've been getting the shaft from these bigots for way too long. SCOTUS decided and we're not going to accept being in the back of the bus when seeking government service just as anyone else wouldn't accept it. If some insane government clerk unfairly and illegally discriminated against you for some reason of your identity, you wouldn't accept it either ... don't lie and say you would because I don't believe you.

Next ...

Edited September 21, 2015 by Jingthing

[Seastallion]

If that's the intellectual level of the bigoted backlash against marriage equality, cats and dogs, WOW ... pathetic!

BTW, gay is NOT a lifestyle and this isn't the 1970s!

So as it is simply against the law then the woman deserves everything she gets because it is against the law. it never enters your head that throwing a woman in jail because of this law is wrong doesn't come into it ?

So by that very argument where homosexuality is illegal then the gays in that country deserve everything they get also ? Do they also deserve to get stoned to death or thrown from tall buildings ?

Of course they don't even if that is what the law says

You can't see that forcing the world to change the very definition of a word is wrong no matter what the cause is. Hence the cats and dogs analogy which was totally missed by you.

As said you demand that everyone bows to your demands yet have a zero tolerance for others that do not agree with you

Which shows who the real bigots are.

I personally have no objection to gays getting married as I have a very much live and let live outlook. I also tend to respect other peoples beliefs and lifestyles.

What I don't do is try to FORCE my choices on other people especially when their beliefs do not agree with mine regardless of what the law says which makes me and you very different people indeed

If I go to a veggie BBQ I will eat a veggie burger and make the most of the night. The people wanting this woman thrown in jail will demand that they are served a steak and to hell with the veggies beliefs

I have found that like the climate change activists the gay rights activists cannot be debated as they simply scream homophobia to shut down debate. They just cannot debate period !

She is trying to FORCE her opinion of what is wrong or right on other people by denying them their legal right to marriage. She says it's wrong, so you can't have the license.

This argument about changing the definition of the word "marriage" is false. Many words have two or more uses or meanings. "Integrate" is an apt example. Commonly used with regard to de-segragation in communities, it is also a mathematical term that has nothing to do with race or people "fitting in".

"Marriage" in the Bible is about Holy Matrimony. "Marriage" in a county clerk's office is about a legal union. You can have the latter without the former...and that is a very significant point. It means the "marriage license" has nothing whatsoever to do with Holy Matrimony, and thus nothing to do with anybody's Bible.

Nobody has re-defined the word. It just has more than one application.

[Jingthing]

Ho hum.

The bigot lady is no longer a democrat.

She has switched parties to where she belongs. Republican.

[whybother]

If that's the intellectual level of the bigoted backlash against marriage equality, cats and dogs, WOW ... pathetic!

BTW, gay is NOT a lifestyle and this isn't the 1970s!

So as it is simply against the law then the woman deserves everything she gets because it is against the law. it never enters your head that throwing a woman in jail because of this law is wrong doesn't come into it ?

So by that very argument where homosexuality is illegal then the gays in that country deserve everything they get also ? Do they also deserve to get stoned to death or thrown from tall buildings ?

Of course they don't even if that is what the law says

You can't see that forcing the world to change the very definition of a word is wrong no matter what the cause is. Hence the cats and dogs analogy which was totally missed by you.

As said you demand that everyone bows to your demands yet have a zero tolerance for others that do not agree with you

Which shows who the real bigots are.

I personally have no objection to gays getting married as I have a very much live and let live outlook. I also tend to respect other peoples beliefs and lifestyles.

What I don't do is try to FORCE my choices on other people especially when their beliefs do not agree with mine regardless of what the law says which makes me and you very different people indeed

If I go to a veggie BBQ I will eat a veggie burger and make the most of the night. The people wanting this woman thrown in jail will demand that they are served a steak and to hell with the veggies beliefs

I have found that like the climate change activists the gay rights activists cannot be debated as they simply scream homophobia to shut down debate. They just cannot debate period !

People want to change the CURRENT definition of marriage.

The Romans had same sex marriage in the 4th century before the church changed the definition to be between a man and a woman.