News Article: Kentucky Clerk Is Due In Federal Court For Contempt Hearing

[Jon]

Maybe unwittingly, Kim Davis was following Kentucky law.

so what, Alabama had anti miscegenation laws on the books until 2000, the Loving Ruling came in 1967. Some states still have blue laws, 7 states still legally prevent atheists from holding public office, these laws have all been ruled unconstitutional by the courts which while unelected it is also constitutionally their designated role

what's on the books and what will hold up in court are very often wildly different things

 

[Jon]

It doesn't, but that's okay. The new "dignity" standard means the infringed get to decide what is and is not a right and what is and is not an infringement. So, whether or not an observer like yourself sees an infringement really doesn't matter.

really stretching for it now

 

[92tide]

It doesn't, but that's okay. The new "dignity" standard means the infringed get to decide what is and is not a right and what is and is not an infringement. So, whether or not an observer like yourself sees an infringement really doesn't matter.

actually, it doesn't work that way.

 

[92tide]

really stretching for it now

this may be one of the gishier gallops we have seen on ns since nybf left

 

[TRUTIDE]

so what

SCOTUS does not have the authority to make or change laws. That is the role of Congress. Congress has not acted. This is the whole crux of the problem. States (like KY) do have the the power to create, amend and enforce laws for its citizens. KY does have a marriage law already on the books. It is up to the Legislature and the Governor of that state to change the law and make any accommodations it sees fit.

We are not under the rule of 5 Justices of the SCOTUS even though it might seem that some in this country think we are.

 

[Jon]

SCOTUS does not have the authority to make or change laws. That is the role of Congress. Congress has not acted. This is the whole crux of the problem. States (like KY) do have the the power to create, amend and enforce laws for its citizens. KY does have a marriage law already on the books. It is up to the Legislature and the Governor of that state to change the law and make any accommodations it sees fit.

We are not under the rule of 5 Justices of the SCOTUS even though it might seem that some in this country think we are.

exactly what George Wallace said about segregation. Not word for word (he was a brilliant down home style orator) but he was wrong too

 

[92tide]

SCOTUS does not have the authority to make or change laws. That is the role of Congress. Congress has not acted. This is the whole crux of the problem. States (like KY) do have the the power to create, amend and enforce laws for its citizens. KY does have a marriage law already on the books. It is up to the Legislature and the Governor of that state to change the law and make any accommodations it sees fit.

We are not under the rule of 5 Justices of the SCOTUS even though it might seem that some in this country think we are.

they have the authority to declare state laws unconstitutional which is what they did in this case.

 

[TRUTIDE]

so when all the DMV clerks in your town convert to Islam and stop issuing drivers licenses to women are you going just "happily move along to the next DMV office" to get your wife, daughter or mom's drivers license renewed? Or are you going to get upset?

My town does not have a DMV. I go to a DMV that not even use the closest one in my county. I have gone to other counties for many public and private services to avoid local offices or establishments on the basis of preference.

We live in a country with established laws that protect religious liberty. Even though many believe that this country was founded on Judeo Christian values, we do not have the state religion that our founders fled from. We do have individual protections though. If I lived in a town that had a major Muslim influence and a DMV that acted like that, I would go to another DMV and subsequently move to a place where my family could thrive and would not have to go through such a hassle. The town would apparently not share my beliefs and there would probably other similar problems to deal with. Why would I want to put my family in such a situation?

 

[TheAccountant]

I have had many many dealings with public employees over a life time. Not many of them display a sense of urgency in what they do. One can easily spend a full day at a DMV office just to renew a driver's license. I have also spent time at private establishments and had bad experiences at all levels. When I figure out that one place is bad, I go find another location to meet my needs. If I were to have trouble with a particular caterer, florist or restaurant, I may express my dissatisfaction but I then go and find one to my liking. If I would have had trouble getting a marriage license at one location, I would have gone to another location as any other couple in love would do.

Regardless of the issue, a citizen who pays the salary of the government official should not have to placate to their whims. You either perform the job and duties assigned to you or resign based on religious conscience, which would be admirable. You don't get to suck on the government teet and play martyr at the same time because the Supreme Court ruled opposite of your personal opinion.

 

[TRUTIDE]

they have the authority to declare state laws unconstitutional which is what they did in this case.

As I said. It would then be up to the state to create new law or amend existing ones.

 

[92tide]

As I said. It would then be up to the state to create new law or amend existing ones.

the state law in question has been declared unconstitutional

 

[Jon]

As I said. It would then be up to the state to create new law or amend existing ones.

that's just not correct.

for example black people could legally marry white people in Alabama from 1967 till 1999 because of the ruling in Loving v Virginia. Alabama residents weren't forced to wait until 2000 for the State to finally pass a law. The old law that prevented inter racial marriage was ruled unconstitutional so the prohibition was lifted, just like this case.

 

[Jon]

My town does not have a DMV. I go to a DMV that not even use the closest one in my county. I have gone to other counties for many public and private services to avoid local offices or establishments on the basis of preference.

We live in a country with established laws that protect religious liberty. Even though many believe that this country was founded on Judeo Christian values, we do not have the state religion that our founders fled from. We do have individual protections though. If I lived in a town that had a major Muslim influence and a DMV that acted like that, I would go to another DMV and subsequently move to a place where my family could thrive and would not have to go through such a hassle. The town would apparently not share my beliefs and there would probably other similar problems to deal with. Why would I want to put my family in such a situation?

I don't believe you

 

[Tide1986]

Regardless of the issue, a citizen who pays the salary of the government official should not have to placate to their whims. You either perform the job and duties assigned to you or resign based on religious conscience, which would be admirable. You don't get to suck on the government teet and play martyr at the same time because the Supreme Court ruled opposite of your personal opinion.

I believe his broader point is that the community, not just the official, would reflect beliefs and practices inconsistent with his own and would not be a desireable place for him to live as a result. So, I imagine from his perspective, the official wouldn't really be the problem -- better to move and reside in a community that reflects how he wants to live and raise his family. But, maybe I missed his point altogether.

 

[mittman]

My town does not have a DMV. I go to a DMV that not even use the closest one in my county. I have gone to other counties for many public and private services to avoid local offices or establishments on the basis of preference.

We live in a country with established laws that protect religious liberty. Even though many believe that this country was founded on Judeo Christian values, we do not have the state religion that our founders fled from. We do have individual protections though. If I lived in a town that had a major Muslim influence and a DMV that acted like that, I would go to another DMV and subsequently move to a place where my family could thrive and would not have to go through such a hassle. The town would apparently not share my beliefs and there would probably other similar problems to deal with. Why would I want to put my family in such a situation?

Tried that. Doesn't work. They're coming where you are. That is one of the things I have been told repeatedly, by multiple different factions in multiple different settings. Those pushing these agendas will not settle for an allowance for communities where the vast majorities that have same or similar religious beliefs can share and practice them openly. There has always been and will always be people ensuring that some can proselytize their belief system, but others can't. The agenda pushers are not trying to remove the ability to share beliefs, they are just trying to shift whose beliefs are considered valid, and who's are suppressed.

I get and agree with the fact that she is in a government position and to abide by the laws of the land. When the laws of the land are changing (arbitrarily or not) you have to come to the decision as to whether or not you can in good faith do that job. IMO that point is valid. Again, my worry is when those that, however imperfectly, are trying to live by a moral code are pushed out and replaced by those that do not hold themselves to one.

 

[NationalTitles18]

What exactly are you arguing because we both say civil rights should happen?

You seemed to use the "have patience" line of thinking and I said rights should be recognized immediately. Why wait?

SCOTUS does not have the authority to make or change laws. That is the role of Congress. Congress has not acted. This is the whole crux of the problem. States (like KY) do have the the power to create, amend and enforce laws for its citizens. KY does have a marriage law already on the books. It is up to the Legislature and the Governor of that state to change the law and make any accommodations it sees fit.

We are not under the rule of 5 Justices of the SCOTUS even though it might seem that some in this country think we are.

Some folks are in dire need of a lesson on what the Constitution really says and means and that is not given by a politician.

 

[Jon]

Tried that. Doesn't work. They're coming where you are. That is one of the things I have been told repeatedly, by multiple different factions in multiple different settings. Those pushing these agendas will not settle for an allowance for communities where the vast majorities that have same or similar religious beliefs can share and practice them openly. There has always been and will always be people ensuring that some can proselytize their belief system, but others can't. The agenda pushers are not trying to remove the ability to share beliefs, they are just trying to shift whose beliefs are considered valid, and who's are suppressed.

no one is stopping you, her or anyone else from professing or practicing any belief. To say otherwise is to either grossly misunderstand what is happening or a lie.

I get and agree with the fact that she is in a government position and to abide by the laws of the land. When the laws of the land are changing (arbitrarily or not) you have to come to the decision as to whether or not you can in good faith do that job. IMO that point is valid. Again, my worry is when those that, however imperfectly, are trying to live by a moral code are pushed out and replaced by those that do not hold themselves to one.

you start this paragraph fairly reasonably then end in garbage. Live by whatever moral code you want but that does not give you the right to make anyone else live by your code no matter what you think is true

 

[AlistarWills]

Not been in this thread, read a little here and there, too much stuff to make my BP rise to a low rolling boil. Just a couple things I'd like to ask/point out.
Why did the government get involved in what was a RELIGIOUS ceremony to begin with? Issuing "licenses" to allow a man and woman to be joined in a RELIGIOUS ceremony?
Why does it matter to the government? (I'm sure it has NOTHING to do with "married" status and the IRS.)

 

[TRUTIDE]

Buy you a book. I don't have that much spare time for teaching.

 

[Jon]

Buy you a book. I don't have that much spare time for teaching.

especially when you are wrong