KY Clerk Refuses to Issue Gay Marriage Licenses, Get's Jailed

[Jack Davenport]

I'll let Justice Kennedy explain it:



One can choose to disagree but it is the correct interpretation of the amendment and the clause(s) from my perspective as they relate to this particular issue.

Who are you to declare that his interpretation is correct. His interpretation was merely in the majority. More than just a few constitutional scholars seem to think he should jump back into his clown car and not write law. Love watching armchair lawyers tell us that this ruling is constitutionally sound when it is anything but.

 

[Straight Shooter]

The validity of the ruling is being challenged here. Everyone understands it is law . The ruling stands unless challenged. Which is what is happening now. Glad to know you are this hung up on following the letter of the law though. There is enough work on your,side to keep you busy for a while.

Serious question, is there a limit to religious freedom? or does it apply across the board on everything? Can a Muslim clerk deny a marriage license to a gay couple? Can a Protestant judge deny a divorce? Can a Hindu judge refuse to sentence a person for his crime? Etc, etc

 

[Straight Shooter]

if marriage is traditionally and legally defined as being between a man and a woman, that applies across the board equally. A straight person would have the exact same right to marry as a gay person under that definition. Whose civil rights were being violated there? That kind of distinction is made all the time. The legal driving age for many if not most states is 16-years-old. When I was 15 and felt I could perfectly handle a car, was I being denied equal protection under the law by not being allowed to drive legally?

My sister and I are pretty close.

 

[sean miguel]

I don't have a sister. But for the sake of equality under the law, why should marriage be limited to straight and gay couples?

I take care of my car and it takes care of me.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Sure they can. Then we go to a Christian clerk or baker or auto mechanic or clergy or just maybe these people don't get elected, appointed hired or reelected based on their performance or predispositions. This thread is 3 pages long and not one person lauding the rule of law has grasped the fact that SCOTUS has written law to make this leap. With absolutely zero regard for First amendment rights. And since we are talking equal projection, I think Kate Steinle's family has a damn good case that SF violated hers.

 

[sean miguel]

Serious question, is there a limit to religious freedom? or does it apply across the board on everything? Can a Muslim clerk deny a marriage license to a gay couple? Can a Protestant judge deny a divorce? Can a Hindu judge refuse to sentence a person for his crime? Etc, etc

Can an Amish be a conscientious objector?

 

[Straight Shooter]

I don't have a sister. But for the sake of equality under the law, why should marriage be limited to straight and gay couples?

I take care of my car and it takes care of me.

Ah, the slippery slope argument. If we let gays marry, than why can't we marry our dog, car, refrigerator or cellphone

 

[sean miguel]

Ah, the slippery slope argument. If we let gays marry, than why can't we marry our dog, car, refrigerator or cellphone

equal protection.


And let me just clarify - I personally don't give two shits what two or more people do or what they want to call it or how it's recognized (I seriously don't fucking care), it's just this evocation of the equal protection clause that's farcical. Granted, I'm no supreme court justice.

 

[mikexmoran]

Perhaps if you were in the legal profession the nuances of Constitutional law and what powers SCOTUS possess would be clearer to you. You sound like the BMW owner that doesn't like the repair bill of 3000 dollars when the highly trained tech tells you that the piston is cracked and you are convinced it is just a spark plug.

Thank you. I feel as though my point was made effectively when someone can't respond to it other then to make insults.

 

[mikexmoran]

and I can post the dissenting opinion.


but here's just my own thoughts on the matter:

if marriage is traditionally and legally defined as being between a man and a woman, that applies across the board equally. A straight person would have the exact same right to marry as a gay person under that definition. Whose civil rights were being violated there? That kind of distinction is made all the time. The legal driving age for many if not most states is 16-years-old. When I was 15 and felt I could perfectly handle a car, was I being denied equal protection under the law by not being allowed to drive legally?

My sister and I are pretty close.

I think this was an honest reply and I can respect it. I don't agree with it, but what I respect is that you're being direct in your beliefs.

Some tangential thoughts that aren't in direct response to your comments -

On this topic, I would say that we do not agree. While a good point that some people may believe incest should be protected as well, I do not believe that same. If we had a reason to be in conflict over our disagreement, I believe the process would be that we would go to court and the court would decide the interpretation of the law. If the court made a decision and one of us did not agree with it, we could appeal. Potentially the Supreme Court of the United States could make a ruling on the interpretation of that law. That would in fact become the law of the land, since it was the court's interpretation of the law.

If my interpretation was not what the court agreed with and I continued to violate it, the court may order to me to stop violating the decision. If I continued, I would be in violation of law.

If the court did not side with my desire instead of violating their decision, which is the interpretation of the law, I could work to change the law itself.

One other thing that I could do to bring awareness to the need for a change in law is to peacefully disobey the law. I would accept the consequences of doing this and in return hopefully bring awareness to my point of view.

Taking this back to what happened in KY, the problem I have is that they had a Clerk who feigns that her rights are being infringed upon. I can't know her thinking, but I will share mine, I believe she does not actually believe legally her rights are infringed upon. I believe she doesn't agree with the ruling and instead of having the courage (which I would respect) of protesting to change the law, even by knowingly violating it and accepting the consequences, I believe she is manipulating the context to put herself in a victim's role. I think she and her supporters are anything but heroes. I believe the are cowards. Any comparison to her (and her supporters) to someone like Rosa Parks is delusional.

But, hey, that is just my opinion. I could be wrong.

 

[mikexmoran]

Who are you to declare that his interpretation is correct. His interpretation was merely in the majority. More than just a few constitutional scholars seem to think he should jump back into his clown car and not write law. Love watching armchair lawyers tell us that this ruling is constitutionally sound when it is anything but.

You seem to be claiming that you're a lawyer. Perhaps you aren't claiming that, but you seem to be.

Since I only know what I have read here about you and am able to put together, you are either trying to project that image and I don't think it is working, or you are in fact a lawyer and would be the type of lawyer that gives the profession its wonderful reputation.

Jagger didn't declare the interpretation was correct, he just stated is was. It doesn't matter if you, a majority of the country, a majority of the world, or even Obama doesn't' agree with it and think it is constitutionally unsound. The ruling was made by the majority of the justices. It is done.

Yes, there are things that can be done after that. If you're a lawyer, you know this.

It sounds like you are looking to nullify a ruling because you don't agree with it.

Sorry, but I think you're cover has been blown.

 

[Jack Davenport]

You seem to be claiming that you're a lawyer. Perhaps you aren't claiming that, but you seem to be.

Since I only know what I have read here about you and am able to put together, you are either trying to project that image and I don't think it is working, or you are in fact a lawyer and would be the type of lawyer that gives the profession its wonderful reputation.

Jagger didn't declare the interpretation was correct, he just stated is was. It doesn't matter if you, a majority of the country, a majority of the world, or even Obama doesn't' agree with it and think it is constitutionally unsound. The ruling was made by the majority of the justices. It is done.

Yes, there are things that can be done after that. If you're a lawyer, you know this.

It sounds like you are looking to nullify a ruling because you don't agree with it.

Sorry, but I think you're cover has been blown.

Yes you got me, I am actually a pressure washer for the past 27 years that moonlights in legal matters. I guess you are still smarting from being exposed as a closet liberal after staking claim to being a conservative for as long as I can remember.. That is not an insult, it is the truth. Your posts read as if I am scanning radio stations in my car, 30 different points in one post and you never finish one before you move on to the next one. I am sorry if challenging you and exposing your elementary knowledge of SCOTUS rulings and their constitutionality embarrasses you but c'est la vie. This guy who gives his profession a bad name or details cars for a living has still schooled you on SCOTUS decisions and you don't seem to like it very much. A little extra Armor All today sir?

 

[Jack Davenport]

I think this was an honest reply and I can respect it. I don't agree with it, but what I respect is that you're being direct in your beliefs.

Some tangential thoughts that aren't in direct response to your comments -

On this topic, I would say that we do not agree. While a good point that some people may believe incest should be protected as well, I do not believe that same. If we had a reason to be in conflict over our disagreement, I believe the process would be that we would go to court and the court would decide the interpretation of the law. If the court made a decision and one of us did not agree with it, we could appeal. Potentially the Supreme Court of the United States could make a ruling on the interpretation of that law. That would in fact become the law of the land, since it was the court's interpretation of the law.

If my interpretation was not what the court agreed with and I continued to violate it, the court may order to me to stop violating the decision. If I continued, I would be in violation of law.

If the court did not side with my desire instead of violating their decision, which is the interpretation of the law, I could work to change the law itself.

One other thing that I could do to bring awareness to the need for a change in law is to peacefully disobey the law. I would accept the consequences of doing this and in return hopefully bring awareness to my point of view.

Taking this back to what happened in KY, the problem I have is that they had a Clerk who feigns that her rights are being infringed upon. I can't know her thinking, but I will share mine, I believe she does not actually believe legally her rights are infringed upon. I believe she doesn't agree with the ruling and instead of having the courage (which I would respect) of protesting to change the law, even by knowingly violating it and accepting the consequences, I believe she is manipulating the context to put herself in a victim's role. I think she and her supporters are anything but heroes. I believe the are cowards. Any comparison to her (and her supporters) to someone like Rosa Parks is delusional.

But, hey, that is just my opinion. I could be wrong.

By all means continue gracing us with what you "feel" about Kim Davis her motivations or her associations or snowfall predictions on Long Island for 2016. Haven't you been telling us that Obama is no different from any Republican politician that he is well intended yet impugning this woman's motivations? You still cannot seem to grasp that SCOTUS wrote law in this SSM ruling while casting aspersions on everyone else because of your incapacity to understand this ruling which was nothing more than judicial activism. Her motivations are as honorable or dishonorable as those that came before her.

 

[Jagger69]

and I can post the dissenting opinion.


but here's just my own thoughts on the matter:

if marriage is traditionally and legally defined as being between a man and a woman, that applies across the board equally. A straight person would have the exact same right to marry as a gay person under that definition. Whose civil rights were being violated there? That kind of distinction is made all the time. The legal driving age for many if not most states is 16-years-old. When I was 15 and felt I could perfectly handle a car, was I being denied equal protection under the law by not being allowed to drive legally?

My sister and I are pretty close.

Equal protection doesn't mean anything goes. As long as the law is applied equally, as in your driving age example, no one is being discriminated against. However, let's say only 15-year-old males were allowed to drive. That would constitute a violation of the equal protection clause. Equal means just that....equal. Pretty simple concept really.....even for a dumb "armchair lawyer" like me.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Equal protection doesn't mean anything goes. As long as the law is applied equally, as in your driving age example, no one is being discriminated against. However, let's say only 15-year-old males were allowed to drive. That would constitute a violation of the equal protection clause. Equal means just that....equal. Pretty simple concept really.....even for a dumb "armchair lawyer" like me.

So kindly explain to us how same sex marriage falls under the auspices of equal protection.

It isn't the "forwarding the liberal agenda clause". It is what it is.. And same sex marriage should have never been heard. Please educate me on what constitutional grounds SSM was subject to judicial review.

There is precedent to support Kim Davis' position far more than gay couples. If I seem a bit arrogant about this well I am. Because this is a victory that is all but certain.

 

[mikexmoran]

Yes you got me, I am actually a pressure washer for the past 27 years that moonlights in legal matters. I guess you are still smarting from being exposed as a closet liberal after staking claim to being a conservative for as long as I can remember.. That is not an insult, it is the truth. Your posts read as if I am scanning radio stations in my car, 30 different points in one post and you never finish one before you move on to the next one. I am sorry if challenging you and exposing your elementary knowledge of SCOTUS rulings and their constitutionality embarrasses you but c'est la vie. This guy who gives his profession a bad name or details cars for a living has still schooled you on SCOTUS decisions and you don't seem to like it very much. A little extra Armor All today sir?

Well, BC, you've lapse into incoherent ranting. So, I'll leave you be.
If you start to make sense and stop throwing nonsensical insults, I'll pay attention again.
Until that time, I wish you well.

 

[Jack Davenport]

:1orglaugh

 

[Supafly]

That woman enjoys her 15 minutes in the spotlight, and the republican candidates greedy for some camera time flock to her side like no tommorrow. And, as shown below, they fight each other off. The circus is taking on momentum!

 

[sean miguel]

Yeah, the Eye of the Tiger song was a bit much. That whole scene would've been complete had Trump flown in on his helicopter.

 

[Supafly]

Yeah, the Eye of the Tiger song was a bit much. That whole scene would've been complete had Trump flown in on his helicopter.

And Scott Walker should have skydived in wearing a "Captain America" suit.