Posted on 09/03/2015 8:50:56 PM PDT by hapnHal
…………….the lady clerk (ELECTED OFFICE) in Kentucky sits in jail, and was offered freedom if she allowed assistant clerks to sign QUEER MARRIAGE LICENSES……….she refused once again. When she took office there was no legal QUEER MARRIAGES, The rules were changed by the SCOTUS, but they DO NOT WRITE LAW, they enforce, and clarify existing law. The federal QUEER MARRIAGE LAW is NOT A LEGALLY written law, by Congress, therefore it is Constitutionally not enforceable. She will now be eligible to file a huge lawsuit against the Judge who found her in contempt of court. She was duly PUBLICALLY ELECTED to her post, so now we have precedence against the SLIMEY San Francisco Mayor and his cohorts. He refuses to enforce Federal law also. Now he too should be given some slammer time to think about it. This is exactly the same thing except with a religious aspect added, I reiterate an ILLEGAL LAW was used as a charge against her which resulted in her being jailed by a Federal judge who is paid by Soetoro. THE SCOTUS DOES NOT WRITE LAW, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY DONE. THE LAW IS FATALLY FLAWED, BECAUSE THEY REFERRED TO TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME GENDER,AS MAN AND WIFE. THE WORD WIFE IN WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY IS DEFINED AS “A WOMAN”, NOT A MAN. This illegal law was PUT UPON Ms,Davis AFTER she was elected to her county clerks position. While she agreed to uphold the laws of the state of Kentucky, she DID NOT AGREE TO UPHOLD PERVERTED FEDERAL LAWS. Sadly the appellate court upheld HER contempt citation. This tells me that the judges are still the alleged GOOD OLE BOYS CLUB of YESTERYEAR. …….and much like DOGS HIND LEGS, which makes them KANGAROO COURTS. Hopefully I will live to watch this all get shoved right back down the Soetoro cohorts throat. I joyfully congratulate her for standing her ground against the SICK, TWISTED MALE BASTARDS who were trying to get married. btw ONE OF THEM REFERRED TO HIS QUEER LOVER AS HIS SOON TO BE WIFE. I BELIEVE THAT SUCH A REMARK TELLS THE STORY AS TO HIS SUBHUMAN MENTALITY.
‘’Christians” need not apply, huh!? They must be excluded by resignng?. I think your reasoning g is off-friend.
That is incorrect. SCOTUS cannot change the plain language of a law (Obamacare notwithstanding).
SCOTUS held that it is unconstitutional for state law to not allow for homosexual "marriage". KY law explicitly disallows homosexual "marriage". SCOTUS, therefore, invalidated KY law.
The KY legislature has not replaced that law. Therefore, there is no operable law for the creation of marriage licenses.
The homosexual "marriage" decision by SCOTUS is, legally, even worse that Roe-v-Wade. In Roe, SCOTUS invalidated laws banning abortion. Roe did not require states to do anything, but rather not to do something. In the homosexual "marriage" decision, SCOTUS invalidated laws, but also requires states to affirmatively recognize and perform homosexual "marriages" regardless of the actual statutory authority to do so.
Finally, if the clerk has to check her religious beliefs at the door (to borrow your phrase) for this elected office, despite the absence of actual law requiring homosexual "marriage", how can this not be considered a religious test for office, which is expressly forbidden by the constitution?
That means the courts can write law, as opposed to interpreting them. Again, existing KY law explicitly makes homosexual "marriage" illegal.
It doesn’t matter what the Kentucky statute says. SCOTUS doesn’t care about what Kentuckians or Georgians or any person living in the US believes about gay marriage. They (incorrectly) claimed that the 14th Amendment trumps millions of votes.
Once they did that, the gay marriage debate was pretty much lost for all practical purposes. In theory, Congress could either take away jurisdiction from the courts on that issue or create a law to circumvent the ruling. The only other mechanism is a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage between a man and a woman.
Kentucky can try to get out of the marriage license issuance business all together, but they’d probably lose that argument because SCOTUS claimed marriage to be a “fundamental right.”
That’s about it as far as our options are at this point.
Unfortunately, this clerk has no authority at this point to disobey. All discretion has been taken away from her by SCOTUS. For her not to issue marriage licenses in a state where licenses are issued in every other county is in contravention of the laws of the state. She is not a legislature.
Her job is to uphold the Constitutions of Kentucky and the US. As perverse, disgusting and anti-Federalist the SCOTUS decision is, Neil/Bob marriages are legal now. Marriage is somehow a “fundamental right.” (It really is NOT a right in my opinion, it’s a construct of state, not federal, law but like that clerk, I have zero authority to change that SCOTUS ruling.)
As such, this clerk has no authority to pick and choose who she gives out licenses to and can not refuse to give out licenses all together. None of us like this, but it is what it is at this point.
I will bet there is no Kentucky law that orders county clerks to issue marriage licenses. They do so by custom in Kentucky and all over America. They also do it to bring in some money.
IOW it is traditional, logical and common sense for Kentucky county clerks to issue marriage licenses but there is no Kentucky (or Federal) law demanding they do so.
So I don’t see where Judge Bunning gets off demanding anything from clerk Kim Davis
Actually, there is a very specific law. The backup is a Justice of the Peace, IIRC. The county clerk is required to sign that the license is issued under their personal authority.
The rules for who may have a valid license specifically identify man and woman, and disallow homosexual “marriage”.
The federal QUEER MARRIAGE LAW is NOT A LEGALLY written law,
Must you use CAPS also...? Very annoying...
The court did not rewrite each state’s marriage law but they have invalidated ones that specify traditional marriage.
And this situation is what will inspire judges to issue contempt citations until state laws are conformed to the Federal will...
Make no mistake; the Federal government means to see same sex marriage the law of the land...
OK thanks and you have said that Kentucky law has been ruled invalid by Federal Courts so now there is no law regarding issuance of marriage licenses in Kentucky. Or certainly no law demanding that the county clerk must sign them or issue them
Why won’t she let other clerks sign homosexual mirage licenses?
Because she objects to her name appearing on the licenses, as it may be taken as approval of the action...
BTW, if it was your intent to say ‘mirage’ instead of ‘marriage’, my compliments...it is the perfect descriptor...
IMHO, this clerk should simply have resigned in protest; the civil law will be observed until changed.
That is exactly what she should have done, but I think she may have been seeking matyrdom...
And if she had simply resigned, we wouldn’t be able to debate and fulminate on these threads, and what fun would that be...?
Paragraph break much?
How many times would you have us resign, or quit, or be fired, or even sent to the Kamps for our faith?
Besides that - look at this as a Constitutional matter. She was following legal state law and ignoring an unlawful and unconstitutional order from the SCOTUS.
It’s a Christian’s duty to obey God rather than men, and a citizens duty to disobey tyranny.
“It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”
- Thomas Jefferson
Bull (Obama)
Was the SCOTUS decision legal? No.
Did it violate the Constitution? Yes.
“When human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void.”
— Alexander Hamilton
Mrs. Davis had the OBLIGATION and DUTY to stand up to tyranny and injustice.
“[T]he Law of Nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other men’s actions must . . . be conformable to the Law of Nature, i.e., to the will of God. [L]aws human must be made according to the general laws of Nature, and without contradiction to any positive law of Scripture, otherwise they are ill made.”
— John Locke, Two Treatises on Government
Nonsense, as much as I disagree with it and think of it as an abomination of Federalist principles, the decision of SCOTUS on gay marriage is unfortunately legal and the law of the land.
Like it or not, SCOTUS is the final arbiter on what’s Constitutional as long as they have subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute (which they do).
The only ways to change that is to either pass a Congressional statute taking away said jurisdiction (and create a Constitutional crisis most likely) or amend the Constitution restoring traditional marriage as it has been from the beginning of time.
should Christians use their varying objection to alcohol, gambling, work on the sabbath and other vices as an excuse not to perform their duties as employees? There was no guarantee for this clerk that the law would never become objectionable. If she worked in a dry County that voted to become wet, should she be allowed not to issue liquor permits if that was part of her job? Yes the SCOTUS decision is wrong but she wasn’t hired to critique the Supreme Court or defy her boss. I sympathize sincerely but until changed, that’s the law.
SCOTUS does not make law. Your ignorance of grade school powers of separation is appalling.
Where did I say that SCOTUS makes law? They determine the constitutionality of statutes. They are the final arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional.
You can rightfully bicker with their interpretation here, but your options are limited to change things.
SCOTUS struck down laws that restricted gay marriage because they were allegedly incompatible with the 14th Amendment. I disagree with that interpretation, however, as of today, it is the law of the land.
The options to override the SCOTUS decision are limited to a constitutional amendment or an act of Congress. Clerks can not override this or any SCOTUS decision ad hoc.
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.