Runnin
Well-known member
And if God didn't intend people to enjoy anal intercourse, why did he put the holes so close together?
So, we can arrest Kim Davis now, right?
- Thread starter goldfly
- Start date
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
trying to go grandfather clause?
if she or others don't realize that laws can change, then i'm not sure what to tell ya
she made her bed and can sleep in it.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
who the **** does she think that her religious views should be imposed on the public and she can get to choose what laws she likes and then "offer a reasonable solution" as if there is something to discuss here?
The problem with her reasonable solution is that it would require an act of the legislature apparently. Calling the entire state legislature into session to change the wording on marriage certificates, seems like it would be a very extreme and expensive action. Maybe they can do that next year when they are back in session. Also if she'd let her subordinates do it then it would be ok, but she won't. She was preventing the entire office from issuing the licenses, so it wasn't just her who wouldn't issue them.
Putting her I jail may have been the only avenue for the courts. It's unfortunate, but they probably didn't have the authority to remove an elected public official from office so there only choice may have been to physically remove her. The clerk's office has to issue the licenses, and she is the clerk. I think she's made it abundantly clear that this is being done on the orders of the courts and not by her will so I don't see how anyone could blame her if she issued the licenses. It sounds as if she's created a situation where the only way to remedy this is for her to resign. You can dispute things, but ultimately when you're the clerk of court you have respect final adjudication just as a lower court would be if there decision was overturned. It's just the way things work.
Putting her I jail may have been the only avenue for the courts. It's unfortunate, but they probably didn't have the authority to remove an elected public official from office so there only choice may have been to physically remove her. The clerk's office has to issue the licenses, and she is the clerk. I think she's made it abundantly clear that this is being done on the orders of the courts and not by her will so I don't see how anyone could blame her if she issued the licenses. It sounds as if she's created a situation where the only way to remedy this is for her to resign. You can dispute things, but ultimately when you're the clerk of court you have respect final adjudication just as a lower court would be if there decision was overturned. It's just the way things work.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
You know how you can tell someone is Bi-sexual? They say "Being gay is a choice". Yes, it is if your bisexual.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
There is always potential for further litigation. That's no rationale for considering a reasonable accommodation that Kentucky statutes seem to allow as Volokh has described.
I want to be on the side of truth.
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
as you see it?
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
it still simply amazes me that "christians" fervently support exclusion and denial of equal rights to people. when marriage has legal repercussions, therefore not strictly a religious thing, you can't tell people they can't get married because it disagrees with your religion. go ahead and hold your ****ty, un-Jesus-like opinion. But ya can't force it legally.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Of course. Isn't that the case with all of us?
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
trying to go grandfather clause?
if she or others don't realize that laws can change, then i'm not sure what to tell ya
she made her bed and can sleep in it.
Was pointing out the hole in your analogy. I'm really not pushing for a grandfathering clause as much as continuing the American tradition of allowing for conscientious objectors, something that should, imho, be advocated by the Left and Right - and especially for freedom lovers.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
But if you can't do your job, then you should step down. I'm all for conscientious objectors. But what you're basically saying is someone should join the army as a pacifist and be allowed not to participate in war, or maintaining war machines, or so on so forth. Which I don't agree with.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
I'm thinking that you are unfairly describing this. She isn't so much as seeking to impose her views on others as she is trying to not have her name, but rather her office, used on the licenses. Why that's such a hard accommodation to grant is beyond me. And why you guys get so exercised against her really, honestly, seems to speak more about you than it does her.
I also don't quite understand how you, of all posters, don't get how one can have a conscientious objection to certain laws. I had viewed you as a champion of such.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
I'm not sure how cumbersome or hard that was actually - especially in comparison to throwing her into jail, without bond, indefinitely. Again, I think the WaPo editorial argued the case well. And as for not letting others in her office to do it - as I've stated already, I think she went to far there - although I understand why - they wouldn't be signing in their names, but with hers.
Another point in all this, that I could be wrong on, but which at least resonants with me is that it would seem that she is upholding current KY law and barring federal legislation and then state legislation being enacted per the SCOTUS ruling then she isn't violating law - she's in the gap between a ruling and subsequent legislation.
My main beef is that we have to - at least I hope - we have to make room for conscientious objectors both inside and outside of government, at least to some extent, else we fall prey to the tyranny of the now and an absolutizing of the State. Just my 2 cents. Course I think I've given you all plenty more than 2 cents worth.
I think I'm also trying to keep the dogs at bay for a wee bit longer...
There will soon be no room for my voice and voices like mine in the government jobs or in the marketplace it would seem.
sturg33
I
You're an angry little man
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
yeah, ****ty people like kim davis disgust me.
sturg33
I
This is not the thread for this... so don't want to get too far off topic... but it amazes me that a person who is against gay marriage "disgusts you" while cutting the face off of an unwanted baby doesn't.
Carry on
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
right....classic sturg hyperbole.
quote me where i said i'm cool with "cutting the face off an unwanted baby." maybe in another thread, not here, as this isn't the discussion. but, since you consistently put words in other's mouths as a debate tactic (it's really a poor one, you know), i'm guessing that's what you're doing here.
sturg33
I
I don't reckon you ever said you're cool with it. Only 57 went to those lengths.
But you didn't condemn it, like you're doing here.
Carry on