Gay couples want Kentucky clerk to reissue marriage licenses

[webfact]

Gay couples want Kentucky clerk to reissue marriage licenses
ADAM BEAM, Associated Press
CLAIRE GALOFARO, Associated Press

FRANKFORT, Kentucky (AP) — Gay couples in Kentucky are questioning the validity of altered marriage licenses issued by a defiant county clerk and have asked a federal judge to order her to reissue the licenses or put the office in receivership and have someone else do it.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses in June after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling effectively legalized gay marriage nationwide. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued her. A federal judge ordered Davis to issue the licenses, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that order.

But Davis refused, citing "God's authority." That's when U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning threw her in jail, prompting a fierce debate in the public square about religious liberty versus the civil rights afforded to all U.S. citizens.

Davis' office issued marriage licenses while she was in jail, but the licenses did not include her name. U.S. District Judge David Bunning ruled those licenses were valid and released Davis on the condition that she not interfere with her employees. She was greeted at the Carter County Detention Center by a crowd of thousands and a church choir, flanked by her attorney and Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.

But when Davis returned to work last week, she confiscated the marriage licenses and replaced them. The new licenses say they were issued not under the authority of the county clerk, but "pursuant to federal court order." Davis said this accommodation preserves her conscience while also granting licenses to same-sex couples.

But on Monday, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union wrote that the validity of the altered licenses is "questionable at best," and that the new licenses bring "humiliation and stigma" to the gay couples who receive them. They asked Bunning to order Davis' office to reissue the licenses. If Davis interferes, the lawyers say Bunning should place her office in a receivership for the purposes of issuing marriage licenses.

"The adulterated marriage licenses received by Rowan County couples will effectively feature a stamp of animus against the LGBT community, signaling that, in Rowan County, the government's position is that LGBT couples are second-class citizens unworthy of official recognition and authorization of their marriage licenses but for this Court's intervention and Order," the lawyers for the couples wrote in a court filing.

Mat Staver, Davis' attorney and founder of the Liberty Counsel law firm, did not directly respond to the ACLU's request for Bunning to put the office in a receivership. Staver said he would formally respond to the ACLU's motion on Tuesday. But he noted that Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear said last week the altered marriage licenses would be recognized by the state.

"Kim Davis has made a good-faith effort to comply with the court's order," Staver said. "The ACLU's motion to again hold Kim Davis in contempt reveals that their interest is not the license but rather a marriage license bearing the name of Kim Davis. They want her scalp to hang on the wall as a trophy."

Sam Marcosson, a constitutional law professor at the University of Louisville, said such receiverships are "unusual and extraordinary," and are generally reserved for situations where other legal remedies are unable to end an ongoing violation of the law. Marcosson described what the plaintiffs are now requesting as a "limited takeover" of her office. The judge could appoint another person to oversee the issuance of marriage licenses, both to ensure that the licenses are issued legally and to protect the deputy clerks, who are now left with the difficult choice to either defy their boss or defy a judge.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-09-23

[webfact]

US clerk could head back to court over licenses
ADAM BEAM, Associated Press
CLAIRE GALOFARO, Associated Press

FRANKFORT, Kentucky (AP) — A U.S. clerk who has already spent five days in jail because she refused to issue marriage licenses after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling effectively legalized gay marriage nationwide could be back in court soon for altering documents issued to same-sex couples.

On Monday, lawyers for two gay couples and two straight couples questioned the validity of the new marriage licenses and asked a federal judge to order Kim Davis' office to reissue them. If she refuses, the lawyers asked the judge to put the office in receivership and have someone else do it.

It was not immediately clear if Davis' office had issued any marriage licenses to straight couples since she introduced the new documents and whether they would also be similarly altered.

Davis is prepared to return to jail over her beliefs, according to an interview that aired Tuesday morning on "Good Morning America" — the first she's given since her refusal to issue licenses gained national attention.

"I have never once spouted a word of hate. I have not been hateful," she said. She also said the licenses going out of her office now, issued by a deputy clerk, don't have her authorization and are "not valid in God's eyes."

Davis stopped issuing all marriage licenses in June. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued her. A federal judge ordered Davis to issue the licenses, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld that order.

But Davis refused, citing "God's authority." That's when U.S. District Court Judge David Bunning threw her in jail, prompting a fierce debate in the public square about religious liberty versus the civil rights afforded to all U.S. citizens.

Davis' office issued marriage licenses while she was in jail, but the licenses did not include her name. Bunning ruled those licenses were valid and released Davis on the condition that she not interfere with her employees.

But when Davis returned to work last week, she confiscated the marriage licenses and replaced them. The new licenses say they were issued not under the authority of the county clerk, but "pursuant to federal court order."

On Monday, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union wrote that the validity of the altered licenses is "questionable at best," and the new licenses bring "humiliation and stigma" to the gay couples who receive them. They asked Judge Bunning to order Davis' office to reissue the licenses. If Davis interferes, the lawyers say Bunning should place her office in a receivership for the purposes of issuing marriage licenses.

Mat Staver, Davis' attorney and founder of the Liberty Counsel law firm, did not directly respond to the ACLU's request for Bunning to put the office in a receivership. Staver said he would formally respond to the ACLU's motion Tuesday. But he noted that Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear said last week that the altered marriage licenses would be recognized by the state.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-09-23

[Seastallion]

"They want her scalp to hang on the wall as a trophy.""

Good. And I hope they get it. It would serve as a warning to other uppity clerks who think their interpretation of their religion supercedes the law of the land and the rights of others.

[Just1Voice]

I'm not a religious person. For me, people are free to believe whatever religion, myth, fairy-tale or fantasy they want. But when those beliefs infringe on the rights of others, then we've got a problem. If you're hired to do a job, then do the job and leave God at the door. If you really believe in Him, then He'll be waiting for you when your work is done. When you start allowing your personal "religious" beliefs interfere with the work you were hired to do, then it's time for you to find another job.

[ABCer]

This gay couple are not happy with being together.

They want a licence from a State to be together.

They don't want just a licence - they want a licence issued by this particular clerk.

I am waiting for the moment when they will demand this clerk to certify the consummation of their marriage.

Perhaps a trisome...?

The greatest problem of our world - first Liberalization, than the rights of minorities, than the loudest minority becomes majority.

And some people like the scalps.

[Seastallion]

This gay couple are not happy with being together.

They want a licence from a State to be together.

They don't want just a licence - they want a licence issued by this particular clerk.

I am waiting for the moment when they will demand this clerk to certify the consummation of their marriage.

Perhaps a trisome...?

The greatest problem of our world - first Liberalization, than the rights of minorities, than the loudest minority becomes majority.

And some people like the scalps.

You clearly are not familiar with, or agree with, the concept of "standing up for one's rights" or the concept of "a matter of principle".

The human rights given to minorities is a great problem of the world? So, the abolition of slavery and the end of racial segregation was wrong. Gay rights are wrong. Stunning and somewhat disturbing stance.

[johnnynmonic]

"They want her scalp to hang on the wall as a trophy.""

Good. And I hope they get it. It would serve as a warning to other uppity clerks who think their interpretation of their religion supercedes the law of the land and the rights of others.

Which law did she violate? Yes, I know there was a court ruling. But has congress passed a law yet?

[Credo]

"They want her scalp to hang on the wall as a trophy.""

Good. And I hope they get it. It would serve as a warning to other uppity clerks who think their interpretation of their religion supercedes the law of the land and the rights of others.

Which law did she violate? Yes, I know there was a court ruling. But has congress passed a law yet?

They don't have to pass a law. The Supreme Court has interpreted existing laws. She is violating those in not doing her sworn duty. Part of that duty is to uphold the constitution, which includes the Supreme Court. Her oath does not include upholding her understanding of God's view on the subject.

[Dustdevil]

I'm not a religious person. For me, people are free to believe whatever religion, myth, fairy-tale or fantasy they want. But when those beliefs infringe on the rights of others, then we've got a problem. If you're hired to do a job, then do the job and leave God at the door. If you really believe in Him, then He'll be waiting for you when your work is done. When you start allowing your personal "religious" beliefs interfere with the work you were hired to do, then it's time for you to find another job.

Well, it's not only a moral issue. The US constitution is very clear in the Constitution itself (pre-Amendment), and in the First and Fourteenth Amendments. And those are not up for interpretation. The Supreme Court decides what the constitution means in terms of the law of the land, and it's pretty straightforward: No federal, state or local government will involve itself in "the establishment of" religion in any way. A bible-thumper imposing her religious superstitions on the rest of us in the course of her duties as a county clerk is in clear violation of the law of the land. She was therefore rightly found in contempt of court and sent to jail for a little while. She can spout all she wants (another benefit of the First Amendment), but not impose her religious beliefs as a government (even local government) official.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Dustdevil

[Dustdevil]

"They want her scalp to hang on the wall as a trophy.""

Good. And I hope they get it. It would serve as a warning to other uppity clerks who think their interpretation of their religion supercedes the law of the land and the rights of others.

Which law did she violate? Yes, I know there was a court ruling. But has congress passed a law yet?

It's not up to Congress to pass laws that conflict with the Constitution. Please see my explanation above.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Dustdevil

[sfokevin]

I think the judge errered in the beginning on focusing on her and making her a martyr... He should have went after the county... Impose a $10,000 a day fine on the county government for violating the constitutional right of people... Give them 30 days to hold a special election... If after the 30 days they are still in violation up the daily fine to $20k/day

[Berkshire]

They don't want just a licence - they want a licence issued by this particular clerk.

You clearly don't understand what's going on here. In this particular jurisdiction, marriage licenses need to be issued by the county clerk. Davis is the only county clerk. Couples wouldn't care if the county clerk was a trained monkey, but they want their licenses legally approved by the county clerk.

[JakeSully]

Which law did she violate? Yes, I know there was a court ruling. But has congress passed a law yet?

It has passed an amendment to the constitution..

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So she's in violation of the Constitution of the United States (the supreme law of the land). The Gay Couples are entitled to the same/ equal marriage license certificate that straight couples are entitled to.

[johnnynmonic]

Which law did she violate? Yes, I know there was a court ruling. But has congress passed a law yet?

It has passed an amendment to the constitution..

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So she's in violation of the Constitution of the United States (the supreme law of the land). The Gay Couples are entitled to the same/ equal marriage license certificate that straight couples are entitled to.

It's a constitutional ammendment? Really?

So your saying sexual liberty trumps her the free exercise of her religion? Because since you bring up the U.S. constitution, perhaps you're familiar with the 1st ammendent. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

[FritsSikkink]

This gay couple are not happy with being together.

They want a licence from a State to be together.

They don't want just a licence - they want a licence issued by this particular clerk.

I am waiting for the moment when they will demand this clerk to certify the consummation of their marriage.

Perhaps a trisome...?

The greatest problem of our world - first Liberalization, than the rights of minorities, than the loudest minority becomes majority.

And some people like the scalps.

no your biggest problem is a bunch of god fearing nutters

[JakeSully]

Which law did she violate? Yes, I know there was a court ruling. But has congress passed a law yet?

It has passed an amendment to the constitution..

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So she's in violation of the Constitution of the United States (the supreme law of the land). The Gay Couples are entitled to the same/ equal marriage license certificate that straight couples are entitled to.

It's a constitutional ammendment? Really?

So your saying sexual liberty trumps her the free exercise of her religion? Because since you bring up the U.S. constitution, perhaps you're familiar with the 1st ammendent. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

You just contradicted yourself.. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

As a citizen protected by the First Amendment, Davis’s private, personal beliefs are covered by the First Amendment. But when she steps into her official role, she is no longer a private citizen—she is now an agent of the government. And the same First Amendment that protects her private freedom of religion bars the government from having any official religious beliefs.

You can't just cherry pick as to what part of the Constitution applies and what doesn't apply.

[thaibeachlovers]

Which law did she violate? Yes, I know there was a court ruling. But has congress passed a law yet?

It has passed an amendment to the constitution..

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So she's in violation of the Constitution of the United States (the supreme law of the land). The Gay Couples are entitled to the same/ equal marriage license certificate that straight couples are entitled to.

They got a legal marriage licence, but they aren't happy. Will anything make these unhappy people, "gay"?

[thaibeachlovers]

Which law did she violate? Yes, I know there was a court ruling. But has congress passed a law yet?

It has passed an amendment to the constitution..

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So she's in violation of the Constitution of the United States (the supreme law of the land). The Gay Couples are entitled to the same/ equal marriage license certificate that straight couples are entitled to.

It has passed an amendment to the constitution..

Rubbish. The Constitution leaves marriage up to the states.

There is no amendment concerning marriage.

The court can only make her issue a legal licence. That has been done. Therefore she is not in violation of this non amendment.

If they want a different licence, they will have to go to court to prove that the licence they were issued is not legal, and they have not done so, so for all intents and purposes they have a legal licence. Case closed.

[FangFerang]

"My personal religion does not allow me to murder or kill, so I am going to refuse paying the portion of my taxes that would go to the US War Machine." No one hears that being sent around to keep everyone angry and distracted.

[thaibeachlovers]

"My personal religion does not allow me to murder or kill, so I am going to refuse paying the portion of my taxes that would go to the US War Machine." No one hears that being sent around to keep everyone angry and distracted.

Lefties usually oppose the military, though they aren't religious, but you don't hear that from them either.

That is a good reason why religion is for hypocrites. Jesus said to sell all that you have and give to the poor, but how many churchgoers do you see following that teaching? Huckabee seems very well dressed for a really devout Christian.

[ABCer]

This gay couple are not happy with being together.

They want a licence from a State to be together.

They don't want just a licence - they want a licence issued by this particular clerk.

I am waiting for the moment when they will demand this clerk to certify the consummation of their marriage.

Perhaps a trisome...?

The greatest problem of our world - first Liberalization, than the rights of minorities, than the loudest minority becomes majority.

And some people like the scalps.

You clearly are not familiar with, or agree with, the concept of "standing up for one's rights" or the concept of "a matter of principle".

The human rights given to minorities is a great problem of the world? So, the abolition of slavery and the end of racial segregation was wrong. Gay rights are wrong. Stunning and somewhat disturbing stance.

No... No... and again No. You are wrong.

Your assumption of what I know, what I did and what I agree with in line with "matter of principle" concept is wrong, but understandable since you don't know me.

Why make such assumptions is not.

Your making a mixed pie of rights given to minorities with human rights is deliberate. And deliberately misinterpreting. Let's see:

First. I am not homophobic. I do not mind gays. I do not mind lesbians. I do not mind gay or lesbian love, relationships etc.

I disagree on a question of them getting a "licence" to a family. Can I have some rights too?

Second. Let me quote my post: " The greatest problem of our world - first Liberalization, than the rights of minorities, than the loudest minority becomes majority."

Why do you misquote me? Or are you deliberately missing the meaning of " first... , than... , than..."

No objection to minority. No objection to giving them rights. Hate loud minority trying (often successfully) to outcry the majority.

Third. Why bring in slavery? Racial equality? Hoping to drum up sympathy and support? Cheap populist acts.

To sum up : My post is a fair statement from my point of view. Your post is not presenting your view but attempting to shut me up using unscrupulous methods. No dice, not with me.

I am not overly conservative. I am not overly emancipated. I prefer women. Some may prefer men. But I never go out for sex parades. And I think some gays should try it in privacy.

Returning to the gay couple and the clerk in the OP - repeat, the couple needs a parade. And you like to watch. Also, if I'm not mistaken you like scalps.

Edited September 23, 2015 by ABCer

[stevenl]

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I doubt you'll get the reference.

Since you did get past the "eight" grade (sic), and obviously not much further, your education is not quite sufficient to be able to comprehend how language evolves.

You should polish up your punctuation and your grammar, too.

"Gay" is perfectly OK to use with regard to homosexuals and it has nothing to do with being PC.

Keep "correcting" if you feel you must, but you only do yourself a disservice.

No it's not OK. If I said to someone that I know that he is looking "gay" today he would probably give me a bunch of fives. It's not OK to take a word that means one thing and use it for something completely different, then bully people to use it for the different meaning. That is why I always refer to "homosexuals" when talking about "homosexuals", not gay people, because "gay" people are happy and cheerful, while the homosexual couples complaining about the legal certificate they were issued are anything but "gay". In fact they are obviously unhappy, vindictive people that will not be happy till everyone else is as miserable as they themselves are, and the clerk in question has been sent to jail for a long time.

They can't even take on the right people which would be the legislature that refuses to impeach the clerk, therefore supporting her stance.

If the state was making them drink from different water fountains and sit at the back of the bus they would have a legitimate beef, but they have the same rights as everyone else now, and can even sit in the same restaurant as non homosexual people.

If they lived in Saudi, or Sudan, or in Hitler's Germany they would have cause to complain, but not for long as they'd be killed, but they don't. Some people just like to complain for the sake of complaining, but they are definitely NOT "gay".

As with many words, also the meaning of 'gay' has changed over the years:

1. jovial or happy, good-spirited

2. a homosexual male or female

3. often used to describe something stupid or unfortunate. originating from homophobia. quite preferable among many teenage males in order to buff up their "masculinity"

1. "We'll have a gay old time."

2. "You DO know he's gay. Notice his homoerotic pornography collection."

3. "Man, these seats are gay. I can't even see what's going on!"

From http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gay

Oxford Dictionary, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gay, even puts 'homosexual' before 'happy':

Definition of gay in English: adjective (gayer, gayest)

1(Of a person, especially a man) homosexual.

Example sentences Synonyms

1.1Relating to or used by homosexuals: a gay bar

More example sentences

2 dated Light-hearted and carefree: Nan had a gay disposition and a very pretty face

Well damn. If that is the Oxford dictionary, I'm definitely not gay now, but I might be gay , though I'm not saying.

I presume you're talking about the 3rd meaning from the Urban Dictionary ::?

[Chicog]

Which law did she violate? Yes, I know there was a court ruling. But has congress passed a law yet?

It has passed an amendment to the constitution..

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So she's in violation of the Constitution of the United States (the supreme law of the land). The Gay Couples are entitled to the same/ equal marriage license certificate that straight couples are entitled to.

It has passed an amendment to the constitution..

Rubbish. The Constitution leaves marriage up to the states.

There is no amendment concerning marriage.

The court can only make her issue a legal licence. That has been done. Therefore she is not in violation of this non amendment.

If they want a different licence, they will have to go to court to prove that the licence they were issued is not legal, and they have not done so, so for all intents and purposes they have a legal licence. Case closed.

The last people I know who wanted a way of distinguishing homosexuals from the rest of the population used this symbol.

The woman is a bigot and should be thrown out of the job.

[Seastallion]

This gay couple are not happy with being together.

They want a licence from a State to be together.

They don't want just a licence - they want a licence issued by this particular clerk.

I am waiting for the moment when they will demand this clerk to certify the consummation of their marriage.

Perhaps a trisome...?

The greatest problem of our world - first Liberalization, than the rights of minorities, than the loudest minority becomes majority.

And some people like the scalps.

You clearly are not familiar with, or agree with, the concept of "standing up for one's rights" or the concept of "a matter of principle".

The human rights given to minorities is a great problem of the world? So, the abolition of slavery and the end of racial segregation was wrong. Gay rights are wrong. Stunning and somewhat disturbing stance.

No... No... and again No. You are wrong.

Your assumption of what I know, what I did and what I agree with in line with "matter of principle" concept is wrong, but understandable since you don't know me.

Why make such assumptions is not.

Your making a mixed pie of rights given to minorities with human rights is deliberate. And deliberately misinterpreting. Let's see:

First. I am not homophobic. I do not mind gays. I do not mind lesbians. I do not mind gay or lesbian love, relationships etc.

I disagree on a question of them getting a "licence" to a family. Can I have some rights too?

Second. Let me quote my post: " The greatest problem of our world - first Liberalization, than the rights of minorities, than the loudest minority becomes majority."

Why do you misquote me? Or are you deliberately missing the meaning of " first... , than... , than..."

No objection to minority. No objection to giving them rights. Hate loud minority trying (often successfully) to outcry the majority.

Third. Why bring in slavery? Racial equality? Hoping to drum up sympathy and support? Cheap populist acts.

To sum up : My post is a fair statement from my point of view. Your post is not presenting your view but attempting to shut me up using unscrupulous methods. No dice, not with me.

I am not overly conservative. I am not overly emancipated. I prefer women. Some may prefer men. But I never go out for sex parades. And I think some gays should try it in privacy.

Returning to the gay couple and the clerk in the OP - repeat, the couple needs a parade. And you like to watch. Also, if I'm not mistaken you like scalps.

Oh dear. So much to refute and which I would have just laughed off, but then you couldn't resist your last sentence and you got personal again, like when you talked about Jews de-flowering my mother...I'm not inclined to let your personal barbs go without response.

Try and "teach me a lesson" again.

My post was not a personal attack, rather it was made firstly in direct response to your words, and secondly with regard to your recent admission of a "psychiatric or psychological disorder" and your reticence for anyone making allowances for it.

First, "than" or "then"? I try to make allowances for your English...but you will insist on repeating your mistakes. No matter, because either word still results in you putting priorities on "the world's greatest problem", of which, according to you, giving minorities rights is one.

You indicated quite clearly that, in your opinion, a great problem of the world is giving rights to minorities. I'm not misquoting you. I'm adjusting the grammar appropriately to reply. Again, I make allowances for your English. No big deal.

Gays are a minority. You think it's a problem (of the world) to give them rights. That may not be homophobic (per se), and I did not say you are homophobic, but still, you think it's a problem to give gays rights. Homophobia does not come into it. Bigotry does.

Slavery and racial equality...same thing. There is no "drumming up sympathy". Ridiculous notion. Slavery and segregation are minority equality issues. Why can't you get that in the context of your "minority rights are a world problem" attitude? How can you not get that?

Returning to the gay couple...they do not need a parade, nor a "trisome" (sic). They need their constitutional rights followed by a local government official.

Incidentally, your suggestion that the gay men might want a "trisome" (sic) with that bigot woman, is rather weird. Are you sure that you have only one "psychological or psychiatric disorder"? Just a question.

[thaibeachlovers]

I am beginning to think that the problem is one of haste. So many in this world want everything NOW, NOW, NOW.

No patience anymore.

Not so long ago, homosexuals were imprisoned for doing it, and shunned if they admitted it, now they are accepted. However, attitudes that were acceptable years ago don't vanish overnight, and perhaps we have to wait for a generation to die out before real change happens.

Women took a long time to get the vote, but it happened and now it's accepted. Blacks in the States were discriminated against, but now the younger generation probably doesn't even think about discrimination.

Perhaps people just need to slow down and accept that some things take time. If they can't get a piece of paper that they like from her, just write her off as a silly misguided person and go elsewhere to get one they like. All this putting people in jail for their beliefs is too OTT for me. Too much like dictatorship.

[JakeSully]

If they want a different licence, they will have to go to court. Case closed.

But they don't want a different license.. they want the same and it's spelled license BTW.

Case closed indeed according to this:

The Supreme Court's Justice Kennedy wrote for the Court:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

[FritsSikkink]

Which law did she violate? Yes, I know there was a court ruling. But has congress passed a law yet?

It has passed an amendment to the constitution..

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So she's in violation of the Constitution of the United States (the supreme law of the land). The Gay Couples are entitled to the same/ equal marriage license certificate that straight couples are entitled to.

They got a legal marriage licence, but they aren't happy. Will anything make these unhappy people, "gay"?

yes, when these relegious muppets stop discriminating

[Scott]

A troll post and a lot of replies have been removed.

When members are obviously trolling, it's best not to respond or quote the post. It causes your otherwise sensible reply to be removed.

[lostboy]

Which law did she violate? Yes, I know there was a court ruling. But has congress passed a law yet?

It has passed an amendment to the constitution..

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land in the United States.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So she's in violation of the Constitution of the United States (the supreme law of the land). The Gay Couples are entitled to the same/ equal marriage license certificate that straight couples are entitled to.

It's a constitutional ammendment? Really?

So your saying sexual liberty trumps her the free exercise of her religion? Because since you bring up the U.S. constitution, perhaps you're familiar with the 1st ammendent. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Perhaps you are not familiar with the US Constitution. From Wikipedia:

"Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. (2006), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant. The Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that because his statements were made pursuant to his position as a public employee, rather than as a private citizen, his speech had no First Amendment protection."

As a government employee, the looney-tunes bigot has restrictions on here 'freedom' to impose her theocratic nonsense on other US Citizens. SCOTUS keeps ruling and the right wing crazies just keep ignoring.

[Publicus]

 

I am beginning to think that the problem is one of haste. So many in this world want everything NOW, NOW, NOW.

No patience anymore.

Not so long ago, homosexuals were imprisoned for doing it, and shunned if they admitted it, now they are accepted. However, attitudes that were acceptable years ago don't vanish overnight, and perhaps we have to wait for a generation to die out before real change happens.

Women took a long time to get the vote, but it happened and now it's accepted. Blacks in the States were discriminated against, but now the younger generation probably doesn't even think about discrimination.

Perhaps people just need to slow down and accept that some things take time. If they can't get a piece of paper that they like from her, just write her off as a silly misguided person and go elsewhere to get one they like. All this putting people in jail for their beliefs is too OTT for me. Too much like dictatorship.

The county clerk was incarcerated by the court because she was in contempt of the court. The reason why the clerk was in contempt may be relevant but it is not material. In other words, the reason explains it but does not justify it.

It matters not what the clerk believes or does not believe. It matters what the clerk does or does not do regarding the law, the Constitution.

Attorneys for the couples are seeking another ruling by the federal judge. It does not matter why the clerk chooses to violate the law because violating the law is the issue. One can say the clerk is violating the law and the Constitution because of her religion and because she is an anarchist who in fact has contempt of the rule of law.