Or because her party affiliation is irrelevant to the issue.
Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
Or because her party affiliation is irrelevant to the issue.
yes but the small minds will grasp at anything
But it must pain you that your hero is a member of the baby killing Democrat party that you seek to destroy.
I have her on ignore too. It happens.
She's an elected official. Not even the governor could fire her outright. She'd have to be impeached by the legislature. So a judge can't fire her, but he can jail her for contempt or obstruction.
I'm pretty sure she went into a local lock up/detention center. It's not Folsom and you can bet she was being looked after with kid gloves given the level of media and public attention. The harm she did was to deny people what they were entitled to from her office, however repulsive you find that particular. We can't have government officials, let alone officers of the court, acting as personal arbiters of the law or the system won't work. She put herself in that detention center by a) failing to execute the duties of her office, as she'd sworn to under oath (the oath isn't "faithfully execute those laws I find agreeable") b) failing to step aside when she could not, in good conscience, do so or c) taking the initial compromise that's essentially what she's doing now.
I pray that concerned Americans will keep in mind that freedom is the Avenue along which we are all treading.
PureX
Well-known member
You have religious freedom. You are free to believe whatever you want. So is everyone else. But when you collect a salary from the public coffers to do a job, the public expects you to do that job. And if you don't do it, they aren't going to continue paying your salary.
Why should they?
It was Davis who imperiled the rights of other citizens. It was Davis who showed contempt for rule of law. It was Davis who was the bad guy.
Let me get this straight. You're intolerant of those self-proclaimed tolerant individuals who hold themselves to be intolerant to your brand of intolerance whom you therefore judge as evil....ergo you're intolerant of perceived evil.
Soooo....is intolerance a fundamental quality of a good or evil person? :dizzy:
You say it was right to jail her Townie, is it right now that she is free?
She is free because a compromise was found.
That PROVES that the law as passed was faulty to begin with, or a compromise would not have to have been found. I conclude that legislators are to blame for passing an ill thought out law.
The law as passed is unbalanced in that it takes people's liberties into account on one hand but denies liberty of conscience to others.
The compromise proves this to be the case.
I'd say he was within his rights to and that it appears to have been necessary to jail her and that he was also within his rights to free her under the understanding that she isn't to interfere in the clerks' execution of the court's order.
I'm fairly sure that compromise was offered prior to contempt. Once it became clear that other clerks were going to comply there was no real point in her remaining adamant.
No one was denied the liberty of their conscience. Kim Davis was and is free to think and believe what she wants on the subject of homosexual marriage. But she isn't free to use that as justification for denying her neighbor anything they're entitled to under the law. It's always been that simple.
genuineoriginal
New member
You still haven't proven that there is any entitlement for people to marry others of the same sex, nor have you proven that there is a law in Kentucky that allows for people to marry someone of the same sex.
Kentucky does have this law, which has not been overturned by any other law:
_____
402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the
civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for
life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent
upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
_____
Kentucky also has this law:402.005 Definition of marriage.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the
civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for
life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent
upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
_____
_____
402.020 Other prohibited marriages.
(1) Marriage is prohibited and void:
. . .
(d) Between members of the same sex;
_____
402.020 Other prohibited marriages.
(1) Marriage is prohibited and void:
. . .
(d) Between members of the same sex;
_____
And this law:
_____
402.045 Same-sex marriage in another jurisdiction void and unenforceable.
(1) A marriage between members of the same sex which occurs in another jurisdiction
shall be void in Kentucky.
(2) Any rights granted by virtue of the marriage, or its termination, shall be
unenforceable in Kentucky courts.
_____
402.045 Same-sex marriage in another jurisdiction void and unenforceable.
(1) A marriage between members of the same sex which occurs in another jurisdiction
shall be void in Kentucky.
(2) Any rights granted by virtue of the marriage, or its termination, shall be
unenforceable in Kentucky courts.
_____
But if they are a capital criminal, and that's what homos are, then she *should* be able to deny them legitimacy under the law.
It's identical to a clerk denying a hunting license to someone legally applying to hunt down chattel slaves. Sure, they might go to jail, but they would be a hero in all right-thinking people's eyes.
Caledvwlch
New member
This is flatly false. We are not in Saudi Arabia.
These guys would make Plymouth Plantation look like the Sandals.
Caledvwlch
New member
Peeling hops with ol' Stephen Hopkins.
Two problems with your answer: first, state law isn't controlling and, second, marriage isn't an entitlement. It's part of your right to contract in a particular sense. Else and to sum, the issue over access to the right has been decided.
Kentucky could pass a law that outlaws interracial marriage if it wanted to, but the S. Ct. has already invalidated it. Same thing here.
Being homosexual isn't a crime, let alone a capital offense in this compact, which is what we're talking about when we talk about the Kentucky case and anything to do with enforceable law here.
I understand what you're saying. You find the actual controlling law of the compact immoral. I'm not arguing against the point. I would argue against the parallel beyond that broad comparison, given the point of hunting human beings would be to violate the rights every man is supposed to have received under our Constitution but didn't for a time and the point of enforcing her conscience (Kim's) was to deny people a right they should have had under the Constitution but didn't for a time.
Or, the problem with your parallel is that it runs for and against you, depending on how you approach it.
The ISSUE, was that she was found IN CONTEMPT of the courts ruling, and THAT carries instant incarceration. It had NOTHING to do with what her morality caused her to do. She was ORDERED to not impede lawful licensing, which she ignored.
Naw...many of us, a great many will not accept that.
I personally would have gone immediately to my superior and made clear that I could not accept the situation as it stood and unless a accommodation could be reached I would have to resign.
But different people act differently.
The bare facts remain the same, a law has been past which allows for the liberty of some but which allows no liberty of conscience to others. That is what must be resolved.
So although I do not fully approve of Kim, she having brought the matter to a head has my full support.
I do not hold that the law is so paramount.
If I'd been an American guy in the 60s I would have disobeyed the draft.
This isn't a pure democracy. The majority don't get to hand out rights like door prizes and discomfort comes with any Republic.
Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with holding a press conference about it either.
Well, it's more that a law that wasn't Constitutional was struck and in doing that the S.Ct. set the standard and opened the right to homosexuals that had previously been denied by laws now deemed unconstitutional.
To underscore, the ruling undoes a law that restricted the right. It doesn't deny anyone a single right, including speech and holding any idea that suits you.
When you say it allows no liberty of conscience you're on the horns of a dilemma. Why? Because your consideration of conscience seems to be rather one sided. What about the conscience of those Kim would impose upon? Why the inequity of right? If you advance freedom of conscience your get gored with that one. Else, no one is actually having their conscience dictated. Kim and those who oppose her are free to voice and hold any opinion they like.
Everyone thinks that until they meet someone from someplace that doesn't have its protections. Or, better, they go there and see what life is like when law is simply an instrument of power, without regard for equality before it.
And my response to that would have depended on whether you stood up within the republic or made for Canada, but we all have to make decisions about what and where we stand. Sending young men to kill and be killed was about as serious a consideration as a people can have.