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

[annabenedetti]

Looks like this isn't over yet. One of her deputy clerks has filed a report to Judge Bunning alleging that Davis violated the court order when she changed the marriage licenses to remove the name of the county, add that they were due to "a federal court order", and have them authorized by a notary public rather than the county clerk (or deputy clerk).

You can read about it HERE.

But now Rowan Deputy Clerk Brian Mason, who has issued every marriage license since Davis was jailed, believes he may have unintentionally defied Bunning's order.

According to Mason's lawyer, Richard Hughes, Mason said when Davis returned to work on Sept. 14, she "came to the office and confiscated all the original forms and provided a changed form which deletes all mentions of the county, fill in one of the blanks that would otherwise be the county with the court's styling, deletes her name, deletes all of the deputy clerk references, and in place of deputy clerk types in the name of Brian Mason, and has him initial rather than sign."


​

I've worked under someone like her. It was hell.

 

[Rusha]

According to Mason's lawyer, Richard Hughes, Mason said when Davis returned to work on Sept. 14, she "came to the office and confiscated all the original forms and provided a changed form which deletes all mentions of the county, fill in one of the blanks that would otherwise be the county with the court's styling, deletes her name, deletes all of the deputy clerk references, and in place of deputy clerk types in the name of Brian Mason, and has him initial rather than sign."

[/I] [/INDENT]I've worked under someone like her. It was hell.

I wonder how long it will be before this poor, suffering paragon of virtue is behind bars again. :think:

 

[PureX]

I wonder how long it will be before this poor, suffering paragon of virtue is behind bars again. :think:

… And then elected governor backed by the Koch brothers. :chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

not cost effective

Setting aside that it's not a necessary component of marriage and never has been, which is why we don't even bother to ask (a question on a questionaire to indicate our societal desire wouldn't be too expensive) are you saying that you place the safety of children (however you're managing to attach it) as less compelling than the consideration of some unspecified expense?

:shocked:

 

[chrysostom]

Setting aside that it's not a necessary component of marriage and never has been, which is why we don't even bother to ask (a question on a questionaire to indicate our societal desire wouldn't be too expensive) are you saying that you place the safety of children (however you're managing to attach it) as less compelling than the consideration of some unspecified expense?

:shocked:

-the law must sustain the right absent a secular argument that meets the standard.

 

[Town Heretic]

-the law must sustain the right absent a secular argument that meets the standard.

Well, you know what they say, those who do not learn from a lawyer are doomed to repeat him.

 

[chrysostom]

Well, you know what they say, those who do not learn from a lawyer are doomed to repeat him.

I can see why a man and woman with kids should stay together
but
do you see why two guys living together should?

 

[annabenedetti]

I can see why a man and woman with kids should stay together
but
do you see why two guys living together should?

Because maybe they have a better marriage than the heterosexual couple who lives next door to them?

 

[chrysostom]

Because maybe they have a better marriage than the heterosexual couple who lives next door to them?

so what, who cares?

the kids care
and
why don't you care about them

 

[Rusha]

Because maybe they have a better marriage than the heterosexual couple who lives next door to them?

so what, who cares?

The couple.

the kids care

Not every marriage involves children ... which you are fine with.

and why don't you care about them

Says the guy who uses them to bolster his own religious and political view ...

Again ... until you concede that the sole reason to allow marriage is to create children, your argument is not relevant.

 

[Rusha]

so what, who cares?

the kids care
and
why don't you care about them

How can you keep a straight face while speaking up for a woman who has been divorced three times and is currently on her fourth marriage.

What about THOSE children?

so what, who cares?

 

[kmoney]

the argument is not based on religious beliefs
it is based on protecting the child
at what point does that fail?

At the point where you can't show how two dudes having a marriage license hurts a child.

Marriage laws can protect more than just biological children, but you don't want gays to have children. Which, at this point, I think is mostly a religiously motivated view.

they all support same sex marriage

does it really matter why they do?

Matter for what?

 

[kmoney]

I can see why a man and woman with kids should stay together
but
do you see why two guys living together should?

Maybe they adopted a child.

 

[Town Heretic]

I can see why a man and woman with kids should stay together
but
do you see why two guys living together should?

Sure, if they're committed to a relationship that isn't necessarily predicated on the introduction of a third party, like many marriages are for people who can't have children or simply don't want to have them.

The real question, to my mind, is why you can't see that. Would you only continue to be married to a woman if she produced offspring? Would you leave her if you discovered she was barren? Even though (presumably) your reason for wanting to marry her and potentially produce offspring at some point likely (God willing) had something more to do with who she was and how that worked into and even altered who you were?

 

[kmoney]

Sure, if they're committed to a relationship that isn't necessarily predicated on the introduction of a third party, like many marriages are for people who can't have children or simply don't want to have them.

The real question, to my mind, is why you can't see that. Would you only continue to be married to a woman if she produced offspring? Would you leave her if you discovered she was barren? Even though (presumably) your reason for wanting to marry her and potentially produce offspring at some point likely (God willing) had something more to do with who she was and how that worked into and even altered who you were?

He probably means why does the state care if they do.

 

[Town Heretic]

He probably means why does the state care if they do.

Nah, I've answered him on that one before. The state has a vested interest in happy, productive citizens. And if those happy, productive citizens reproduce or adopt it gives them a little help for the added benefit come tax time.

 

[patrick jane]

So if the legislative branch creates a law that says Jews are not human and people have to get a license so they can work for them, and the executive branch enforces said law, and the judiciary agrees the application of the law is constitutional, wouldn't you want your elected officials to oppose such a law?[/QUOTE]

but the elected officials made the laws -

 

[chrysostom]

He probably means why does the state care if they do.

see what happens when you think

the state knows they will have to take care of the kids
if
you don't

 

[Town Heretic]

see what happens when you think

Maybe, try modeling it and let's see.

the state knows they will have to take care of the kids
if
you don't

What percentage of homosexual couples vs heterosexual couples abandon children these days? And how many in a quantitative sense? Because the overwhelming number of people producing children are heterosexual...so I'm not sure what point you're trying to serve with that approach. Homosexuals, comprising a sliver of the population, are going to start willy-nilly adopting or third party producing children then leaving them on doorstops so we should nip it?

 

[chrysostom]

Maybe, try modeling it and let's see.


What percentage of homosexual couples vs heterosexual couples abandon children these days? And how many in a quantitative sense? Because the overwhelming number of people producing children are heterosexual...so I'm not sure what point you're trying to serve with that approach. Homosexuals, comprising a sliver of the population, are going to start willy-nilly adopting or third party producing children then leaving them on doorstops so we should nip it?

just ask the kids
if
they think mommy and daddy should stay together