Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kentucky marriage law
Kentucky state government ^ | Kentucky legislature

Posted on 09/04/2015 7:33:37 AM PDT by ctdonath2

As usual, there is a great deal of chatter about the law without anyone actually knowing what it actually _says_. Follow the link and read the Kentucky statutes on marriage. Note that these have not yet been repealed/vacated, certain prohibitions remain in place, and insofar as SCOTUS issued a ruling declaring such law unconstitutional it is by default null and void - therefore there is nothing for the federal judge to coerce Kim Davis into acting on.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; kentucky; kimdavis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last
To: gdani

Did you read the KY law at the link I provided? The issue is quite clearly addressed and deeply intertwined. Rather difficult to extract the objected-to parts without voiding the whole thing.

One way or another the law MUST be formally re-written or struck down entirely. The nature of law is NOT to just ignore bits of it based on vague statements, even if those vague statements are compulsory. We have to know exactly what the law is, SCOTUS ruling having been applied.


21 posted on 09/04/2015 8:23:31 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The world map will be quite different come 20 January 2017.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AmericanCheeseFood

Don’t think it matters for Hillary! at this point. She crossed the wrong people (military intelligence), and they’re building a solid case for destroying her.


22 posted on 09/04/2015 8:24:24 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The world map will be quite different come 20 January 2017.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

Can anyone be coerced into IMPEACHMENT of Judge Bunning for his unlawful acts?


23 posted on 09/04/2015 8:25:05 AM PDT by StonyBurk (ring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk

I’ve already contacted my Representative about doing exactly that. Have you?


24 posted on 09/04/2015 8:27:39 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The world map will be quite different come 20 January 2017.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

I can only hope. Issue though is that Obama has been using that power to bust down on Generals quite a bit while in office.

I only hope, due to the fact the email issue can possibly splash back on the Resident, that we do get to see Hillary spend some time in a big house, where she can think over a lot of things she’s done.


25 posted on 09/04/2015 8:29:50 AM PDT by AmericanCheeseFood (Walker Cruz Carson | hard targets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
One way or another the law MUST be formally re-written or struck down entirely.

Please feel free to contact Davis's legal team with your theory. The same one that is apparently escaping all conservative legal scholars, judges, prosecutors, law professors, law students, etc.

26 posted on 09/04/2015 8:29:53 AM PDT by gdani (No sacred cows)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk

She sure is and who appointed him Judge? That needs to found out so we know where his support lies in her being put in jail....


27 posted on 09/04/2015 8:30:36 AM PDT by HarleyLady27 ("It's the hard working, tax paying citizens of the United States that are suffering...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
First of all, I agree with Kim's right to her conscience.

But what Kim should have done was what Thomas More did. He would not betray his conscience, so he quit his job.

More was only arrested after he had been gone from the scene awhile when the king insisted that he take the oath. The refusal was a capital offense.

Kim should have quit her job. I can't see the government running after her like the king did to More.

Things are so screwed around.

28 posted on 09/04/2015 8:32:40 AM PDT by Slyfox (If I'm ever accused of being a Christian, I'd like there to be enough evidence to convict me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

I doubt any of the guards at the jail would risk his/her life in order to keep a political prisoner in jail. They would probably stand aside in the face of an overwhelming show of force.


29 posted on 09/04/2015 8:35:31 AM PDT by GodAndCountryFirst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: gdani
In this case, SCOTUS voided all laws and state constitutional amendments as they apply to prohibiting gay marriage. It did not throw overboard all states' entire laws that apply to all marriages.

Having read the statutes that define when a clerk issues marriage licenses, they all are worded gender-specifically, and all rely on the explicit definition of marriage as man & woman.

They all were voided because they all are foundationally related to hetero marriage.

30 posted on 09/04/2015 8:43:40 AM PDT by MortMan (The rule of law is now the law of rulings - Judicial, IRS, EPA...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

Yes, she should have focused on the law. Her argument implies that she believes she is performing or solemnizing a marriage, when in fact she is simply issuing a license for someone else to perform that function. The argument would be a lot more relevant if she were a justice of the peace who was being coerced into solemnizing the ceremony.


31 posted on 09/04/2015 8:49:34 AM PDT by Burkean (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Burkean

Actually, the marriage licenses state that it is given under her personal authority, with her signature. That is the crux of the matter.


32 posted on 09/04/2015 8:50:41 AM PDT by MortMan (The rule of law is now the law of rulings - Judicial, IRS, EPA...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Burkean

She’s still facilitating it.


33 posted on 09/04/2015 10:29:31 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (The world map will be quite different come 20 January 2017.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox
I can't see the government running after her like the king did to More.

Obviously you are not very familiar with either the gay mafia or the federal department of "justice."

34 posted on 09/04/2015 11:20:37 AM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Her whole case was based on a “religious freedom” argument, when a simple reference to the statutory requirements under Kentucky law would have sufficed.

Which leads me to repeat...she wanted to become a martyr...


35 posted on 09/04/2015 11:25:20 AM PDT by IrishBrigade (build)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

I wonder how county clerks who are observant Christians have handled the licensing of the sale of alcoholic beverages. My cousin is county clerk (not in Kentucky) and that is one of her duties. I don’t think she has a religious compunction against the consumption of alcohol, but I know many who do.


36 posted on 09/04/2015 12:21:01 PM PDT by Burkean (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

You mean that if she were to quit her job the gay mafia and the department of justice would have pulled her back into the fight and eventually loped her head off?


37 posted on 09/04/2015 12:25:01 PM PDT by Slyfox (If I'm ever accused of being a Christian, I'd like there to be enough evidence to convict me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

Not this week. Maybe next.


38 posted on 09/04/2015 12:33:16 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Burkean

Methinks you grossly overestimate how many Christians oppose alcohol consumption; correlation is practically nonexistent.

You also are using an analogy where the licensed activity has been normalized long before one accepts a job which includes that facilitation.

The problem in this case is that Davis became County Clerk _before_ the KY definition involved was changed by judges outside her jurisdiction. Yes she may choose to step down, but it is also reasonable to refuse to facilitate an activity which was not part of the job description, and address that refusal on religious grounds WITHOUT being incarcerated for a mere administrative paperwork dispute.

It’s the old “living near an airport” issue: moving to a home next to an airport and then complaining about the noise is one thing, moving to a home which an airport is built next to much later is quite different. Your cousin KNEW issuing alcohol-related licenses was part of the job before she signed up for it. Davis didn’t know she’d have to facilitate activity that a great many consider morally reprehensible (way more than oppose alcohol availability).


39 posted on 09/04/2015 12:39:34 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (The world map will be quite different come 20 January 2017.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Slyfox

They may very well have pressed charges anyway. Kept her head, but lost her liberty.


40 posted on 09/04/2015 12:40:33 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (The world map will be quite different come 20 January 2017.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-54 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson