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.
Not in her state. AND she is a STATE official.
Well if she wasn’t charged with a crime, and only contempt of court, if she says she’s sorry the Judge will let her go, but they only have a certain time limit and then they have to either charge her with a crime or let her go...
Well, this judge thinks he’s enforcing a law but as the one who started this column has pointed out, ‘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.’
I don’t understand why the judgey guy got his Depends all in a wad. Contempt of the “courts” is quite common in America these days. The “courts” are way out of control. The judgeys are ordering criminals to be released to make room for innocent people.
“Judges cannot make law.”
*****
Judges make law all of the time by creating imaginary rights under the Constitution, deferring to regulatory actions of bureaucrats, and relying upon international law.
The thing that everyone is missing here is that the homosexuals could have gone to just about any other county in Kentucky to get that license but no they chose to take her on because she said she would stand by her convictions. Typical liberal gay stance, “ I am going to force you to do it my way. I have all the rights and unless you accept my beliefs you are a bigot.” If I was dying to be married, I would have run to any county to get a license. I wouldn’t be fighting with a clerk I knew wasn’t going to issue me a license. Mrs Davis was not keeping them from being married, they made that choice.
And the Secretary of State can't have her own private email server.
And Security Risks can't occupy high government positions.
And government officials aren't allowed to use ALIAS email accounts to conduct government business.
Negatory on that.
Sorry won't do, she has to PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE THAT SHE WILL VIOLATE HER RELIGIOUS FAITH AND MORAL CODE.
Why are you arguing with me?
This may not be popular sentiment on here, but, as much as an abomination to federalism and as much as the SCOTUS ignored the will of the people to take a stand via the ballot box with this terrible gay marriage decision, it is now the law of the land.
This clerk has zero discretion to ignore or disobey that decision. Her religious beliefs get checked at the door when she walks into work in the morning. She swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Again, as terrible as this decision was, denying gay marriage is unconstitutional.
The only ways to override that decision is via Constitutional Amendment or possibly an Act of Congress altering gay marriage in a way that moots the decision. It stinks, but realistically, it is what it is.
Nope, no law was broke. The Supreme Court issues rulings. It’s then incumbent upon congress to pass laws comporting to those rulings. But congress is too chicken and it’s too politically dangerous to actually do their jobs. So she’s abiding by the only law she can recognize..those on the books for her county.
Exactly, my friend. More people need to understand this.
Great point!
Nope. There is no law.
/johnny
the sureme court never made law that county clerks must issue marriage licences. So she broke no law.
It would then be no surprise that this 'couple' was approached by some activist and offered fame and fortune to confront Mrs. Davis. I would suggest that the money trail leads back to Soros.
What about the 14th amendment doesn't that say it is our freedom to worship however we feel and the government has no law over this?
What about the 14th amendment doesn't that say it is our freedom to worship however we feel and the government has no law over this?
I’m pretty sure the holding of the cases directs clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in these cases at the end of the day. That’s how the cases got to SCOTUS to begin with.
Neil and Bob decided to get try to get “married” at the clerk’s office, a clerk told them, sorry, not in this state.
I was trying to point out that the reality of the situation is that JUDGES are making LAW, whether it's 'legal' or not.
I agree that they are not supposed to. We need to put a stop to it.
I don't know how 'we' are supposed to get to someone who is appointed for life.
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.