Posted on 09/06/2015 4:20:07 PM PDT by Mrs. Don-o
Yes.
Hard to tell which question you were referring to so let me try again. How can divorce be legal in Kentucky when their law defines marriage as being for life? And has anyone told any of the people who got married since Obergfell that their marriages are invalid?
The first quote was from Kennedy who wrote the MAJORITY opinion.
He said that the state laws are invalid. And Roberts virtually repeated what he said.
The first quote was from Kennedy who wrote the MAJORITY opinion.
He said that the state laws are invalid. And Roberts virtually repeated what he said.
To the extent that they prohibit same sex marriage. In Kentucky that was one clause in the law on who could get marriage licenses. The other clauses remain in force.
As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.
Just curiosity on my part, but why do you want so badly for Kim Davis to be in jail?
So the divorce is illegal in Kentucky?
Just curiosity on my part, but why do you want so badly for Kim Davis to be in jail?
I would ask you to point out where I've ever said Kim Davis deserves to be in jail. Kim Davis is not in jail because she has some ridiculous interpretation of Kentucky law. She is in jail because her religion does not allow her to follow the law. She is not claiming that she can't issue marriage licenses because marriage is no longer defined. She is stating that since the Supreme Court said that same sex couples can marry she cannot in good conscience issue such licenses and still follow her Christian teachings. Kim Davis is in jail for spiritual reasons. She came to moral fork in the road and followed the path that most would not because it's too hard. And because of that I have a great deal of respect for her for having the courage of her convictions. I don't have the same respect for those promoting their off-beat legal interpretations.
I am not a lawyer. Are you a license, practicing lawyer?
I am not a lawyer. Are you a licensed, practicing lawyer?
I'm not, but I'm going on the assumption that Kim Davis's lawyers are and they somehow have managed to miss your interpretation of the Kentucky marriage laws. I wonder why?
And lawyer or no, I'm still interested in your opinion. Based on the Kentucky definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman for life then do you think divorce can be legal there?
He said earlier that he was as much a lawyer as I am. But then he admitted he is not a lawyer.
I have done apellate work in regard to statutory authority and interpretation. Doodle dawg has apparently done no legal work at all.
He asks questions and then when you answer him he asks the same questions again.
He is not interested inlearning.
Nothing to be learned from you, though I'm still waiting for you to answer two questions. Responses to those should be interesting, perhaps amusing, but probably not very informative.
My interpretation is not a novel interpretation. My interpretation is what Kennedy and Roberts wrote, both of whom say that Kentucky's (various states) marriage laws are invalid.
Honestly, DoodleDawg, neither you nor I know all that Kim Davis’ lawyers presented to the federal judge. We do know that her central claim, and her claim repeated many times, is that she cannot violate her religious faith. That claim does not preclude other issues.
I believe I acquainted you or the ksatty with the words of Matt Bevin, republican candidate for Kentucky governor. His words agree in part with our contention that Kentucky's marriage laws need to be rewritten. Mike Huckabee, candidate for president, also is saying similar things. The same for Rand Paul.
Huckabee and Stephanopoulos:
HUCKABEE: George, can you cite for me what statute Kim Davis would be required follow in order to issue a same-sex marriage license in Kentucky when her state specifically says, by 75 percent of the voters, that marriage means one man, one woman? Can you cite the statute at the federal or state level that she’s supposed to follow? Even the very form that she fills out specifically lists a male and a female. Does she have the authority just to scratch that out and create her own?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Doesn’t she have to the duty to obey a legal order from the court?
HUCKABEE: Well, you obey it if it’s right. So I go back to my question. Is slavery the law of the land? Should it have been the law of the land because Dred Scott said so? Was that a correct decision? Should the courts have been irrevocably followed on that? Should Lincoln have been put in jail? Because he ignored it. I mean, that’s the fundamental question. Do we have a check and balance system? Do we have three equal branches or do we have one supreme branch, not just the Supreme Court? That’s the fundamental question. And, George, this is a bigger issue than this one thing. This goes back to the larger issue of whether or not what we’ve learned in ninth grade civics is even still operative. And why people are so angry across the country not just on this issue but on others is that the ruling class has thumbed their nose at the very constitution. You’ve got Democrats who ignored the law when it was the law to have traditional marriage.
The above underlined is precisely in tune with what P-Marlowe is saying. So, in reality it isn't novel at all, although I believe he might have been the first on FRepublic that I noticed explaining it.
Why haven't Kim Davis' attorney's used the same argument? I'm not sure if they did or they didn't. Neither are you.
Except that Kennedy didn't write that.
Honestly, DoodleDawg, neither you nor I know all that Kim Davis’ lawyers presented to the federal judge.
Actually we do. Her lawyer's filings are available online - Link. They don't mention the law or your interpretation of it.
Kentucky's law WAS one of those excluding same sex couples, so Kennedy's opinion makes it invalid.
Perhaps we read the English differently, DoodleDawg, but for the life of me, I don't see how.
Thanks for the link. Their 3rd argument, 'religious test to hold office' assumes an invalidated Kentucky marriage law. Otherwise, there would be no test being failed by Davis.
Their accommodation argument extensively suggests legislative alterations that assume a NEED to produce a valid, new Kentucky law.
La La La La, La La La.
La, La La La.
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.