So, we can arrest Kim Davis now, right?

[BedellBrave]

You'll have to elaborate.

She, at some point in this fiasco, offered to sign/stamp with "Clerk" instead of "Mrs. Davis." That request doesn't seem to me to place an undue hardship upon those seeking to obtain signed licenses or upon the government and Kentucky's RFRA seems to allow for the validity of granting such a request without rewriting the Kentucky statutes.

Why do you think that was an undue, unreasonable hardship?

Why do you think it was an unreasonable hardship when there was another county official outside her office who could sign the licenses?

 

[The Tariff King]

I think I brought it up before he did and Volokh brought it up and others of course because it is the most famous example (in my opinion) of law/ruling getting it wrong.

Him saying "It's still the law of the land today, except nobody follows it" was just stupid.

That's what the 14th Amendment was for. To undo that wrong.

 

[BedellBrave]

Call Obama a liar if you want, he's always been pro same-sex marriage (as evidenced by the survey he filled in Illinois in the 90's).

It would have been stupid of him to lose votes in 2008 for endorsing SSM. By 2012 the country was more ready and politically it was not going to backfire on him to endorse it.

Nearly every GOP candidate on the debate stage other than Jeb has admitted maybe we probably shouldn't have gone into Iraq. Goes to show you how one fringe topic could sway public opinion so easily. Jeb is forever linked to Iraq even if he had no direct influence on it.

So you are saying he lied? I'd prefer to believe him. Substitute my name for his then.

 

[BedellBrave]

Him saying "It's still the law of the land today, except nobody follows it" was just stupid.

That's what the 14th Amendment was for. To undo that wrong.

I try not to listen to Huckabee. I didn't hear what he said, just assumed he referenced it as I had.

 

[BedellBrave]

I'm personally just using my instincts here. I respect the position of the wedding cake company for example, as I think they had an honest conundrum. I'm a big believer in the idea of religious freedom, but I just am cynical of having Davis essentially be our spokesperson on this one.

Oh, believe you me, I'd prefer another choice too - I'm not wild about defending a Democrat, member of of heterodox church. But till the point it is proved she's was/is in it for the show/money, then I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. I'll risk the egg-on-the-face, for the greater principle. In other words, I don't want to be a cynic even when I feel the pull.

 

[weso1]

Oh, believe you me, I'd prefer another choice too - I'm not wild about defending a Democrat, member of of heterodox church. But till the point it is proved she's was/is in it for the show/money, then I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. I'll risk the egg-on-the-face, for the greater principle. In other words, I don't want to be a cynic even when I feel the pull.

Well, you're doing a great job defending her. You've made me think twice about my position in regards to Davis. This is not an easy position to take on your part and I appreciate that. I think on the general issue you are right.

 

[BedellBrave]

I'm actually quite concerned about where the yeezus, golds, zitos, etc., want to take us. I read this thread, I read the vitriol. I read the swift portrayal of the woman in the most derogatory and sexist and bigoted language and I think, hmmm, that sort of anger and disdain is hard to check. It's troubling.

 

[goldfly]

Well Beds, you already control both chambers of Congress, if you get the Presidency next year you can make a Constitutional Amendment to overturn SCOTUS, just like the 14th Amendment and Dred Scott decision.

they wouldn't have 38 states to pass that agenda

 

[Oklahomahawk]

I'm actually quite concerned about where the yeezus, golds, zitos, etc., want to take us. I read this thread, I read the vitriol. I read the swift portrayal of the woman in the most derogatory and sexist and bigoted language and I think, hmmm, that sort of anger and disdain is hard to check. It's troubling.

This is what getting involved in politics does to all of us, some more than others maybe, but that (kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity) spirit very alive and well in the whole political arena. It's like mucking out a stable when it's 105 degrees and windy, if you get in there, no matter your intentions, the sh*t starts flying and after a while you look over at the other guy shoveling it and you can't help but notice that HE is covered in sh*t. It happens to all of us

That is why, no matter what you think/thought about the quote from the Southern Baptist pastor I posted the other day (the one who wasn't exactly a fan of Mrs. Davis) the second half of it is absolutely happening in this country and around the world. We're (believers) losing ground right now because the political parties who say they want our support are so slick they have use saying and supporting things and people that if we could take a step back and do the whole introspection thing we would all be less than pleased at what we saw. I remember how disgusted I was and still am at myself for the things I thought, said, and stood for back when I was a big time Reagan supporter back in the 80s.

 

[yeezus]

I'm genuinely curious about this: what bible verses condemn gay marriage directly? where does vehemently being against this come from? and why is it more significant than the other things the bible says not to do?

 

[50PoundHead]

What the hell was Huckabee thinking bringing up Dred Scott?

I think he was trying to reference an example of what could be perceived as overreach by the Supreme Court. The problem, at least in my view, is that Huckabee is driving the wrong way through the civil rights tunnel in referencing the case. Dred Scott was an example of the court limiting individual rights; Obergefell expands individual rights. We can argue all day long about gay marriage and whether it is a civil right, but that's not the relevant point vis-a-vis referencing Dred Scott.

 

[Julio3000]

She, at some point in this fiasco, offered to sign/stamp with "Clerk" instead of "Mrs. Davis." That request doesn't seem to me to place an undue hardship upon those seeking to obtain signed licenses or upon the government and Kentucky's RFRA seems to allow for the validity of granting such a request without rewriting the Kentucky statutes.

Why do you think that was an undue, unreasonable hardship?

Why do you think it was an unreasonable hardship when there was another county official outside her office who could sign the licenses?

I'm not sure that I have stated an opinion that it was.

at some point in this fiasco

The particular point in time does matter to me, in context. Was it before or after the matter was taken to court?

Both the license-seekers and the magistrate are being used by larger interests, and are taking extreme positions. I'll stipulate that.

I'll also stipulate that the courts, including SCOTUS, can make wrong decisions. It's silly not to, IMO, and one doesn't need to invoke Dred Scott to make the point. Doing so is a pretty sad trivialization of the ramifications of that decision.

I, in the narrowest personal sense, don't find a trip down another hallway to be an unreasonable hardship. On the other hand, I would understand if someone in that position found the refusal of services to be humiliating and discriminatory, and would similarly understand their desire to seek legal redress.

By the same token, I don't find stamping a document that legally validates a civil contract between two individuals who have the same reproductive parts to be a substantial burden on one's religious faith. There are matters of scale and substance here that are, IMO, being glossed over in fairly glib fashion. This is not forcing a rifle into a Quaker's hands, or enforcing a warrant on a runaway slave, or enacting the Nuremberg Laws.

 

[Julio3000]

I think he was trying to reference an example of what could be perceived as overreach by the Supreme Court. The problem, at least in my view, is that Huckabee is driving the wrong way through the civil rights tunnel in referencing the case. Dred Scott was an example of the court limiting individual rights; Obergefell expands individual rights. We can argue all day long about gay marriage and whether it is a civil right, but that's not the relevant point vis-a-vis referencing Dred Scott.

Yes.

 

[BedellBrave]

1. I'm not sure that I have stated an opinion that it was.

at some point in this fiasco

The particular point in time does matter to me, in context. Was it before or after the matter was taken to court?

Both the license-seekers and the magistrate are being used by larger interests, and are taking extreme positions. I'll stipulate that.

2. I'll also stipulate that the courts, including SCOTUS, can make wrong decisions. It's silly not to, IMO, and one doesn't need to invoke Dred Scott to make the point. Doing so is a pretty sad trivialization of the ramifications of that decision.

3. I, in the narrowest personal sense, don't find a trip down another hallway to be an unreasonable hardship. On the other hand, I would understand if someone in that position found the refusal of services to be humiliating and discriminatory, and would similarly understand their desire to seek legal redress.

3. By the same token, I don't find stamping a document that legally validates a civil contract between two individuals who have the same reproductive parts to be a substantial burden on one's religious faith. There are matters of scale and substance here that are, IMO, being glossed over in fairly glib fashion. This is not forcing a rifle into a Quaker's hands, or enforcing a warrant on a runaway slave, or enacting the Nuremberg Laws.

1. Would you please?

2. It would seem that folks who share your position on this case haven't been willing to concede the point without the invocation - at least no one here had/has.

3. Again, as I've told weso - whether you think she should or shouldn't be burdened isn't the point nor do we (I think) want the government making that call. The substantial burden is the burden not placed on the objector but on the business/government were they to grant the request.

 

[sturg33]

I'm actually quite concerned about where the yeezus, golds, zitos, etc., want to take us. I read this thread, I read the vitriol. I read the swift portrayal of the woman in the most derogatory and sexist and bigoted language and I think, hmmm, that sort of anger and disdain is hard to check. It's troubling.

You ain't kidding... the hate and over-the-top rhetoric flows too easily with some

 

[BedellBrave]

I'm genuinely curious about this: what bible verses condemn gay marriage directly? where does vehemently being against this come from? and why is it more significant than the other things the bible says not to do?

I'll answer you in a bit.

 

[Julio3000]

1. Would you please?

2. It would seem that folks who share your position on this case haven't been willing to concede the point without the invocation - at least no one here had/has.

3. Again, as I've told weso - whether you think she should or shouldn't be burdened isn't the point nor do we (I think) want the government making that call. The substantial burden is the burden not placed on the objector but on the business/government were they to grant the request.

I'm not sure I understand. It refers to the individual, specifically, per the RFRA. If you don't want the government making the decision, that would seem to open the door to all kinds of wackiness.

1. I did, in the post you quoted. With some qualifications and allowances for context.

 

[Runnin]

I'm genuinely curious about this: what bible verses condemn gay marriage directly? where does vehemently being against this come from? and why is it more significant than the other things the bible says not to do?

Not trying to steal Bedell's treasured thunder, but it takes about 2 secs to google.

http://www.openbible.info/topics/homosexuality

Leviticus 18:22 ESV / 2,238 helpful votes

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV / 1,597 helpful votes

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 1:26-28

Leviticus 20:13

1 Timothy 1:10

etc...

Much more than I thought it would be, actually.

 

[goldfly]

Heavily Armed “Christian Patriot” Militia Vows To Stop Future Arrests Of Kim Davis

The Oath Keepers, the heavily armed and self-described “Christian patriot” militia who recently appeared in Ferguson, Missouri to “help” the police quell civil unrest, will be on the other side of the law in Kentucky where they have vowed to prevent federal marshals from ever arresting Kim Davis again. Right Wing Watch reports:

Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes announced yesterday that he had reached out to Davis’ lawyers at Liberty Counsel to offer the protection of his group, which he says is already forming a presence in Rowan County, Kentucky, where Davis was recently released from jail after prohibiting her office from issuing marriage licenses. Rhodes said in a statement that his position has nothing to do with gay marriage, but rather his conviction that Davis had been illegally detained by the federal judge who held her in contempt for violating multiple court orders.

In a phone call with Jackson County, Kentucky, Sheriff Denny Peyman and other local Oath Keepers activists, Rhodes said that he was on his way to Kentucky to help with the Davis operation. Although the group had originally intended to picket outside the home of the judge who held Davis in contempt, he said, they had changed their plan when she was released on Tuesday. Rhodes said that the Rowan County sheriff should have blocked U.S. Marshals from detaining Davis, but since neither the sheriff nor the state’s governor will do their “job” and “intercede” on behalf of Davis, the Oath Keepers will have to do it instead.

 

[zitothebrave]

I look forward to these guys being arrested for interfering with the law. Hopefully they're stupid enough to fire on the police and get wiped out.