Posted on 09/09/2015 12:19:51 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said that while it was too bad Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis was put in jail over her refusal to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, people have to abide by the Supreme Court's ruling on the matter.
"Well, you know, she was released and that was good, and it was too bad that she had to be put in jail, and I'm a very, very strong believer in Christianity and religion, but I will say that this was not the right job for her," Mr. Trump said on Tuesday evening's "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News. ...
"Because we had a ruling from the Supreme Court and we are a country of laws and you have to do what the Supreme Court ultimately, whether you like the decision or not, and it was a 5-4 decision, whether you like the decision or not, you have to go along with the Supreme Court" Mr. Trump said. "That's the way it is." ...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
[I just watched Cruz’s speech at the rally today.]
Two thumbs on that, also Levin knocked it out of the park.
I’m rethinking my opinion on Trump and I really hope Cruz doesn’t get hurt by his association with him.
I wonder that as well.
You are accepting the Liberal premise that the laws were legally changed; That judges have unlimited powers to redefine the law as suits their whim.
Adolf Hitler had enabling legislation passed which gave him the power to do this. He became a tyrant and authorized many atrocities, all legal.
The law should be DELIBERATELY BROKEN when it is immoral, especially as regards something so fundamental to society as to the meaning of marriage.
People like you who suggest that we obey the laws because they are "legal" are the same sort who sat back and allowed the Nazis to confiscate the property of the Jews and then march them into camps.
That stuff was all "legal" as well. No laws were broken, because government officials and the populations meekly accepted the legitimacy of such vile laws.
Well this is a vile decision by the Supreme Court, and vile decisions should not be obeyed. They should be deliberately, and defiantly disobeyed, because they are the result of a branch of government reaching beyond it's legitimate powers.
I looked up the word "Matrimony". It is from Latin, and it's main root is "Mater", meaning "mother. It literally means "mother ceremony."
A ceremony held for the purpose of creating a mother.
Where does two male poop pushers fit into the meaning of that word?
Well stupid and wrong is kinda his thing so ...
Uh-huh. That was the prevailing opinion during his Senate race, too (at one point he was estimated to have been polling at -1, according to the margin of error).
Just watch him.
[...you are another pathetic poster to hide behind anonymity...]
I didn’t catch YOUR real name, could you repeat it for me?
I thought I had read that the law required the name of the clerk to be on the licenses. If so, that accommidation would not be possible. Perhaps not, I’ll have to see if I can find it again.
Trump is a moron, if we had one more so called conservative on the court it would have been 5-4 the other way. The court is not an unbiased court as it once was a long, long time ago it is a political barometer.
Thanks for reminding me about Mark. I missed his speech, too...I need to see it.
"I’m rethinking my opinion on Trump and I really hope Cruz doesn’t get hurt by his association with him."
I don't believe he will. I'm reading Cruz's book, and he's campaigning the way he did for the Senate. It's not in his interest to attack Trump; Cruz would rather spend the time laying out his positions so people can see the differences between him and the other candidates.
He did that today, when he said that any president worth having would tear up the Iran deal on the first day. Trump, who has said he would "police" it rather than discard it, was right there, but there was no need for Cruz to call him out on it.
I will say this...from what I'm reading about Ted and the way he runs his campaigns, I'm not at all worried about him.
“People keep missing that point. She is following the law. The judge threw out the law. She didn’t.”
But isn’t her argument a religious objection argument that would seem to apply no matter how the law was changed, for instance if congress changed it, or the KY legislature or a referendum voted it in? If all she wanted was to be able to issue licenses without her name on them, and that would satisfy her religious objection, then that doesn’t seem to me that she thinks all KY marriages or just ‘gay marriages’ are prohibited.
Freegards
“[...you are another pathetic poster to hide behind anonymity...]
I didn’t catch YOUR real name, could you repeat it for me?
Did I, by any chance, say a word to you? Neither did I catch YOUR real name.
A few points:
All this about proving the Supreme Court ruling isn’t a law, isn’t getting anyone anywhere.
Congress could limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction but has not in the past.
Congress could impeach Justices but isn’t going to.
Donald Trump is an interesting phenomenon, he has my support on immigration, but we cannot count on him to be a true conservative.
Cruz would be a great leader but so far hasn’t caught fire.
Trump is right that the woman can’t be a county clerk and refuse to issue licenses once it’s legally determined they must be issued.
Trump is missing the larger issue regarding religious faith versus what the Supreme Court has caused.
Trump is not a conservative at heart he is not a budget slasher or tax slasher. There is great risk in Trump.
Luckily we have a bit more time to think this over.
Kim Davis was the deputy clerk for 24 years before being elected as County Clerk in 2014.
Apparently, it was the right job for her, up until a few months ago.
-PJ
Trump will be very popular on msnbc.
{Kentucky law says that a marriage license must contain “an authorization statement of the county clerk issuing the license,” which same-sex marriage advocates note is standard language, preprinted on the form. State law does not require a clerk’s signature on the license; to be valid, it must have “the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license.”
The Rowan County attorney, Cecil Watkins, has said that licenses issued without Ms. Davis’s assent would be valid, but he could not be reached for comment Friday.}
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/05/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0
As mentioned in a related thread, Trump is one of probably many low-information presidential candidates who likely doesn’t understand the Founding State’s division of federal and state government powers any more than he understands the difference between legislative and judicial powers. So Trump’s patriot supporters need to get him up to speed on these things.
What about the 14th Amendment? These laws aren’t being applied equally.
“Mat Staver, Kim Davis’ attorney, told CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” that his client would issue licenses if her name and title were not on them.”
You aren’t current as to what her lawyer and Kim are contemplating. There is already a blank fill-in form her office is using at this very moment. That, according to her lawyer is not good enough for Kim. She wants a new, nameless form created and approved by the State Legislature. Problem is, the Legislature doesn’t meet again until January.
To bring the Legislature back into session because of Kim and her lawyer’s personal interpretation of what constitutes an accommodation would inconvenience the entire legislative body and at great taxpayer’s expense. Kim/her lawyer could easily have her office (her deputies are using the blank forms and issuing the licenses, not her) service the public until the Legislature is back in session in January and then they could seek further remedy via the State if they wished then, without breaking Kentucky’s taxpayer paid piggy bank.
My gut says she won’t do this because she is enjoying the limelight, her martyrdom, and psychologically craves the attention. Also by virtue of her 3 marriages and illegitimate children that she conceived between marriages, she appears to be a very emotionally needy person. She will never have a wider audience in her lifetime for positive feedback. Hence my scepticism as to her motives.
If religious exemptions aren’t going to be honored, then how can the Catholic church stop women from being priests? If any other business didn’t hire someone for a job because she was a woman, they would be sued.
The reality is we have religious exemptions to all kinds of laws and regulations and they are allowed to be based on gender. Not allowing this woman to have a religious exemption goes against our history, tradition and arguably the first amendment.
If you buy the Supreme Court’s ruling, this is still a case of two amendments clashing. And in that case, the first amendment should take precedence based on seniority.
Then there was the accommodation of the judge down the street offering to issue them for her, but the couple could not accept that.
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.