Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed

[Yorzhik]

No, Yor, they're the same in process. They're at odds in principle, as your hypothetical denies right and the current ruling advances it. Your hypothetical runs contrary to the principle of equality before the law and the current ruling advances equality before the law.

No, they both extend rights. One the right to pretend to marry, the other to legally work biological non-humans. Don't forget, the example already established non-humans.

That being said, there is no difference between extending a right or removing one via license. The fact remains that it is correct, though not an obligation, for the issuing government official to deny license to homos for whatever they might want to do because it is a sanction of the legitimacy of homo behavior; and legitimizing homo behavior is a bad thing.

 

[Sherman]

No you didn't, and now you're lying.



And you're a liar.

I actually posted the judge's full order. HERE IT IS AGAIN

Not one thing in any of the court documents showing where Judge Bunning ordered Davis' name be removed from licenses.

And notice something else, i.e., how easy it is for me to re-post links and material that backs up my claims. Huh. :think:



Wow. You really do have a reading problem, don't you?

None of those people are arguing that the licenses aren't valid. The two clerks just raised the question, and Judge Bunning said he wasn't saying one way or the other.

Contrast that with what we've already seen, specifically the county attorney, the state attorney general, and the governor all saying they're legal.

Time for you cut your loses and move on like you usually do.

Time to cut your losses Jose, She's not lying. This is what A4T quoted in post 284 of this thread, if you took the time to read the thread. The thread contains other links. You need to cool down.

Cause the media doesn't care to present the truth if it doesn't suit their agenda.

See the following statement from Al Mohler's Briefing:

As Mrs. Davis and her attorneys have made clear, she has been willing for her name to be removed from marriage licenses in Rowan County, but she is not willing to put her name on those licenses so long as that would require her approval of same-sex marriages. But Judge Bunning made clear that he would be satisfied only when Mrs. Davis either issues marriage licenses in compliance with the Obergefell decision or resigns her office.​

And this statement from herself:

"I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God's definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience...."

And this statement from the AP:

"Davis has refused to issue marriages licenses for two months since the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage. She argues that her Christian faith should exempt her from signing the licenses."

And this statement from her attorney:

Davis only asked that the Kentucky marriage license forms be changed so her name would not appear on them. She would record any license without her name affixed. Marriage licenses remain in county records permanently. Davis said, “I never imagined a day like this would come, where I would be asked to violate a central teaching of Scripture and of Jesus Himself regarding marriage. To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience.”​

And Judge Bunning (who is acting like a fascist judicial tyrant) refuses to allow her to keep her position while abstaining from signing or placing her name on documents that violate her religious conscience. So she will stay in jail until she resigns her position, which she was elected to prior to the Supreme Court decision or violate her conscience.

 

[fzappa13]

Funny Doc ... and a good point. Until Christ returns I fear our attempts to see to the implementation of His kingdom are doomed to failure. He's going to do the heavy lifting at the appointed time ... not the SCOTUS or a Clerk.

However, we are free to start that party in our own life at any time.

 

[annabenedetti]

So let's take a look.

You're claiming that 1) Judge Bunning was the one who ordered the licenses be changed to remove Kim Davis' name, and 2) you have backed up #1 by posting links/documentation to that effect.

Now obviously this could only have happened in the last day and a half. Therefore, your post with this documentation must also be from the last day and a half. That does narrow the search down quite a bit and allows us to check your claims against the record.

#874: No documentation

#877: No documentation

#878: No documentation, and amazingly, even includes a CNN article that states "Bunning's order makes no mention of revising the licenses to accommodate Davis", which directly contradicts your claims!!

#880: No documentation

#888: No documentation

#894: No documentation

#900: No documentation

#901: No documentation

#904: No documentation

#908: No documentation

#931: No documentation

#955: No documentation

#959: The first post in which you make the claim, "The judge is who said they could alter them", yet no documentation is provided and it is now directly contrary to what you posted in #878.

#964: No documentation

#968: You repeat the claim again, but with no documentation.

#970: No documentation

#973: No documentation, and you really start lying profusely.

#975: No documentation

#988: Now you're repeating your lies habitually ("I did back my claim"), and still no documentation.

#989: You once again repeat the claim, but offer no documentation.

And that brings us to now, where you've fully dug your heels in and are lying in just about every post.

So not only are you a liar, you're not even a good one. You didn't post any actual documentation that shows where Judge Bunning ordered Davis' name removed from the licenses, and you even posted and quoted a CNN article saying that he didn't.

Davis' legal team has filed appeals to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

"If (Davis' deputies) can issue licenses under someone else's authority ... Kim Davis would not stand in the way of that," one of her attorneys, Roger Gannam, told CNN's "New Day" on Tuesday.

Davis' legal team on Monday asked the appeals court for an injunction that would prompt Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear to remove her name from the licenses, something her attorneys say Beshear can do through an executive order.

Beshear's office said Monday he wouldn't respond to news of the appeals, saying the case was a "matter between her and the courts."

The state Legislature also could pass a law removing clerks' names from the licenses, but it won't be in session until January.
​

One of Davis' attorneys said Bunning hasn't resolved anything.
"We've asked for a simple solution -- get her name and authority off the certificate. The judge could order that," Staver said.
​

And looking at the judge's order, nowhere in it does he order the alteration of the marriage licenses. There's mention of alteration, but it's not an order from the judge, it's mentioned in the plaintiff's status report to him. There's a footnote which reads:

According to the Report, Plaintiffs have obtained marriage licenses from the Rowan County Clerk’s Office.1 1) While the Status Report reflects that Plaintiffs’ marriage licenses have been altered so that “Rowan County” rather than “Kim Davis” appears on the line reserved for the name of the county clerk, Plaintiffs have not alleged that the alterations affect the validity of the licenses. Nor do the alterations impact the Court’s finding that the deputy clerks have complied with the Court’s Order.

I agree with you, Jose. I don't see anywhere on that order where Judge Bunning ordered the licenses be changed to remove Kim Davis' name

 

[Town Heretic]

No, they both extend rights. One the right to pretend to marry, the other to legally work biological non-humans. Don't forget, the example already established non-humans.

If you begin with the premise of equality before the law then negate the premise you're no longer operating under the compact that proceeded whatever it is you're writing law under.

That being said, there is no difference between extending a right or removing one via license.

They're fundamentally at opposition unless you're, again, talking about process, but it would be protecting or denying a right. Prior law denied. Current law protects.

The fact remains that it is correct, though not an obligation, for the issuing government official to deny license to homos for whatever they might want to do because it is a sanction of the legitimacy of homo behavior; and legitimizing homo behavior is a bad thing.

You're certainly entitled to believe that. You can call them homos. I can call their choice a sin. We're both within our rights to call it whatever we want, to think of it what we will and to feel about it any way that suits us. We're just not entitled to deny those who don't agree their rights. That's all this comes down to.

 

[TracerBullet]

Equality is not destructive. Sodomy is.

being arrogant and unconcerned with the well being of others certainly can be destructive

 

[TracerBullet]

you should stop believing that then

and you should especially stop believing that black people are perverts

go run along, adults are trying to have a conversation

 

[TracerBullet]

Not to support ok doser or his ilk, but choice is definitely something that gays have. They ALL choose their orientation, regardless of whether they admit to it or not. Those who truly come out of the closet will admit it, other who want an external excuse for their choice, will use whatever is handy. Eventually ALL of us will have to confess ALL our sins.

Did you choose your orientation?

 

[ok doser]

awwwww

jo sefly went all red

 

[kmoney]

We have a winner.

Romans 1:32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

con·sent
kənˈsent/
noun
noun: consent; plural noun: consents

1.
permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
"no change may be made without the consent of all the partners"
synonyms: agreement, assent, acceptance, approval, approbation; More
permission, authorization, sanction, leave;
backing, endorsement, support;
informalgo-ahead, thumbs up, green light, OK
"the consent of all members"
antonyms: dissent

verb
verb: consent; 3rd person present: consents; past tense: consented; past participle: consented; gerund or present participle: consenting

1.
give permission for something to happen.
"he consented to a search by a detective"
synonyms: agree to, assent to, yield to, give in to, submit to

Her name on them implies consent/agreement

So for the licenses that the deputy clerks issued during the past few days with her name on it....you think she consented/agreed with them?

 

[kmoney]

awwwww

jo sefly went all red

When is it your turn?? :devil:

 

[Yorzhik]

We're just not entitled to deny those who don't agree their rights.

Homos don't have the right to get married for 2 reasons: Adjectives modify nouns and homo behavior is a capital crime.

Thus, we are entitled to deny homos legitimacy - just like we are entitled to deny murders, rapists, kidnappers, and other people that commit capital crimes legitimacy.

 

[drbrumley]

Homos don't have the right to get married for 2 reasons: Adjectives modify nouns and homo behavior is a capital crime.

Thus, we are entitled to deny homos legitimacy - just like we are entitled to deny murders, rapists, kidnappers, and other people that commit capital crimes legitimacy.

For sake of discussion, where do you draw the line on capital offenses? Obviously the three you mentioned are indeed Capital Crimes, but what else falls under this banner? Prostitution, adultery etc?

 

[Town Heretic]

Homos don't have the right to get married for 2 reasons: Adjectives modify nouns and homo behavior is a capital crime.

Thus, we are entitled to deny homos legitimacy - just like we are entitled to deny murders, rapists, kidnappers, and other people that commit capital crimes legitimacy.

I suppose you can have the last one on that, given you did me the courtesy of including my note of the actual law.

I have no idea why you felt obliged to continue to use a descriptive that sounds angry and fearful, which is how "homos" resonates. That kind of language always feels like a schoolyard insult...I think kids go to it for power, conflating force with a sort of reason that truth never requires. We're full grown men, you and I, and the time for that is passed.

Also, unless you like incentivizing murder I'd reconsider making kidnapping a capital offense.

 

[ok doser]

I have no idea why you felt obliged to continue to use a descriptive that sounds angry and fearful, which is how "homos" resonates.

and "murderers" and "rapists" doesn't? :freak:



perhaps you'd be more comfortable with "men who are attracted to other men, and we shouldn't judge them harshly on what is their weakness, as we all have weaknesses and my fondness for an extra serving of ice cream is no different than their desire to stick particular body parts in disgusting other body parts"

 

[StanJ]

don't encourage me
or my ilk

Don't know you, although it appears you have been here before under a different alias. I do know that high rep level mean you are obviously known here and as you seem to agree with most of those I don't, yes, you are of THAT ilk in this matter.

I would encourage you to practice WWJD instead of the opposite.

 

[StanJ]

Did you choose your orientation?

Definitely.

 

[StanJ]

For sake of discussion, where do you draw the line on capital offenses? Obviously the three you mentioned are indeed Capital Crimes, but what else falls under this banner? Prostitution, adultery etc?

This is well defined in EXISTING laws. We don't draw any lines, they are already drawn.

 

[ok doser]

Don't know you, although it appears you have been here before under a different alias. I do know that high rep level mean you are obviously known here and as you seem to agree with most of those I don't, yes, you are of THAT ilk in this matter.

I would encourage you to practice WWJD instead of the opposite.

WWJD if the wedding at Canaa had been a gay "wedding"?

 

[ok doser]

This is well defined in EXISTING laws. We don't draw any lines, they are already drawn.

the lines for prostitution, pornography, adultery are no longer drawn in anything but chalk on a sidewalk