Kim Davis not exactly the poster girl for Godly marriage...

[InTheLight]

No, she isn't. Kentucky state law doesn't recognize homosexual redefinition of marriage and she is obliged to not recognize it, as well.

No. Your homosexual redefinition of marriage is not recognized in Kentucky.

She's obligated to recognize the laws of her state.

The job description doesn't require her to go against state laws and the law of the land, the Constitution

You need to show that SSM is not the law of the land in Kentucky. Please prove that. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

As I previously posted the governor of Kentucky thinks SSM is the law of the land in Kentucky.

Kentucky Gov. Beshear said Tuesday that the legislature can address the issue, if it chooses, when it convenes next year. "I see no need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money calling a special session of the General Assembly when 117 of 120 county clerks are doing their jobs."

Two other county clerks, like Davis, are also declining to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

So first show that Kentucky does not recognize SSM. Can you do that?

 

[Zaac]

You need to show that SSM is not the law of the land in Kentucky. Please prove that. Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

As I previously posted the governor of Kentucky thinks SSM is the law of the land in Kentucky.

Kentucky Gov. Beshear said Tuesday that the legislature can address the issue, if it chooses, when it convenes next year. "I see no need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money calling a special session of the General Assembly when 117 of 120 county clerks are doing their jobs."

Two other county clerks, like Davis, are also declining to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

So first show that Kentucky does not recognize SSM. Can you do that?

The Governor of Kentucky and 117 clerks sure do seem to recognize it as the law in Kentucky.

 

[InTheLight]

Kay Davis is a Democtrat.

So NOW she's not worthy of being helped because she's a Democrat? :laugh:

 

[Zaac]

 

[JohnDeereFan]

The Governor of Kentucky and 117 clerks sure do seem to recognize it as the law in Kentucky.

Unfortunately, none of them are legislators, so what they choose to recognize in their personal views does not make law for Kentucky, any more than the SCOTUS does.

 

[Zaac]

Unfortunately, none of them are legislators, so what they choose to recognize in their personal views does not make law for Kentucky, any more than the SCOTUS does.

The SCOTUS didn't make the law. They just gave their interpretation of the law as it applies to the Constitution.

And Kentucky, like it or not, is bound by precedent to recognize federal law as superseding to state law.

 

[annsni]

The SCOTUS didn't make the law. They just gave their interpretation of the law as it applies to the Constitution.

And Kentucky, like it or not, is bound by precedent to recognize federal law as superseding to state law.

What federal law allows for SSM in all 50 states and it's territories?

 

[Crabtownboy]

What federal law allows for SSM in all 50 states and it's territories?

The Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, this majority GOP conservative court. Their interpretations of law make that law the law of the land over all state laws that are in conflict with it. Like it or hate it that is the way our government works.

 

[Zaac]

What federal law allows for SSM in all 50 states and it's territories?

What CTB said.

If folks don't like it, then go through the process of changing it.

But as it stands it is the law. And if a Christian cannot in good conscience abide by the law in doing their sworn duties, then he should resign.

 

[InTheLight]

What federal law allows for SSM in all 50 states and it's territories?

There isn't any particular law. But SCOTUS has ruled that SSM is legal in all states based on the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.


and they said this:

(b) The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. Pp. 10–27.
(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices
central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v.
Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486.

http://documents.latimes.com/supreme-court-rules-gay-marriage/

So we can disagree with the decision, but we have to live with it.

 

[targus]

Or submit to being put in jail as a protest to bring about change in the law.

 

[Zaac]

Or submit to being put in jail as a protest to bring about change in the law.

Her protest isn't gonna bring about a change to the federal law. The SCOTUS just ruled on it and rejected hearing from her.

 

[preachinjesus]

She is following the law. Kentucky state law does not recognize the homosexual redefinition of marriage.

Unfortunately for her, that's not the way this works anymore. Maybe if we were still under the provisions of the Articles of Confederation (c. 1781) this line of argumentation would make sense, however, we are not and it does not.

States rights still exist, absolutely they do, but in this instance where the overriding national interest has bearing the individual states' views have been nullified by a decision by the SCOTUS.

Like I said in my previous post, this is the way it is today. If you don't like it, okay, so plan on spending the next several election cycles changing the system or opt for a bloodier path. Frankly, the latter isn't probable nor right and the former takes time.

I agree. However, under our system of government, the authorities over us are only valid inasmuch as they adhere to the Constitution. If they're not, then they're acting illegally and we have no obligation to obey them.

Not according to the Constitution.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how our current federal constitutional republic functions.

Last time I checked, this was still America. Americans do not have rulers, Comrade.

Thank you for attempting to smear me as a communist.

It has? Could you please show us where the 10th Amendment was repealed?

I believe the Civil War took care of this issue as you are presenting it, followed by World War I and then the Great Depression.

But if you're looking for case law, please consult Cooper v. Aaron for relevant precedent. Also check Marbury v. Madison and then the slew of cases following Brown v. Board of Education.

That's a lie. SCOTUS cannot make laws, legislate from the bench, or impose laws on states.

Well, outside of calling me a liar for stating a legal fact, this is in error. Nobody has said that SCOTUS is a legislative body. It is a legal body. Granted, I'm not keen on the way SCOTUS has been acting, nor the bulk of the judicial branch. That said, we are still under the leadership of the current system and, while we have legitimate recourse to change it, must patiently await the coming changes through the legitimate means available to us via the electoral cycle.

May posterity forget that you were our countryman, comrade. Honestly, when I read the bovine skubulon in your post, all I can hear is Merle Haggard singing, "...and I wonder just how long the rest of us can count on being free..."

I like, when someone with a legitimate point, disagrees with you the near default response is to libel them and smear them with one of a dozen political caricatures in an attempt to bolster your point at their expense. The challenge is that almost everyone on this board is smart enough to see through it and you are, ultimately, perceived as intellectually weak in your argumentation, sir.

 

[Zaac]

I like, when someone with a legitimate point, disagrees with you the near default response is to libel them and smear them with one of a dozen political caricatures in an attempt to bolster your point at their expense. The challenge is that almost everyone on this board is smart enough to see through it and you are, ultimately, perceived as intellectually weak in your argumentation, sir.

Yep.:thumbsup:

 

[targus]

Her protest isn't gonna bring about a change to the federal law. The SCOTUS just ruled on it and rejected hearing from her.

Her protest alone... no it won't change the law.

But added to many others it could change people's opinion and some day could change the law.

Kind of like the civil rights protests did.

 

[Zaac]

Her protest alone... no it won't change the law.

But added to many others it could change people's opinion and some day could change the law.

Kind of like the civil rights protests did.

No problem with that. But she can't remain employed by the government she objects to if she refuses to do the job she was hired to do. Thus she needs to resign.

 

[InTheLight]

Unfortunately for her, that's not the way this works anymore. Maybe if we were still under the provisions of the Articles of Confederation (c. 1781) this line of argumentation would make sense, however, we are not and it does not.

States rights still exist, absolutely they do, but in this instance where the overriding national interest has bearing the individual states' views have been nullified by a decision by the SCOTUS.

Great post, preachinjesus.

JDF keeps saying Kentucky law prohibits SSM but he has yet to show or prove that claim.

 

[targus]

No problem with that. But she can't remain employed by the government she objects to if she refuses to do the job she was hired to do. Thus she needs to resign.

Who says she must resign?

Can't the county fire her if she isn't doing her job?

A firing and then a law suit for termination of her employment violating her freedom of religion rights would make a much better protest.

 

[Zaac]

Who says she must resign?

Can't the county fire her if she isn't doing her job?

A firing and then a law suit for termination of her employment violating her freedom of religion rights would make a much better protest.

Sure they could and I'm not really sure why they haven't up to this point other than the fact that she is in an elected position.

Maybe the folks she submits to are friends and figured they'll just let it play out.

 

[annsni]

I believe in order to "fire" her, they need to impeach her - by vote of the governing body which doesn't meet again until next year or some such thing. It would cost them money to convene to make the impeachment decision.