BREAKING: Supreme Court rejects Kentucky gay marriage case

Twitter ^ | 08/31/2015 | AP

[GIdget2004]

The Associated Press @AP BREAKING: Supreme Court rejects Kentucky gay marriage case, clerk must issue licenses despite religion

[morphing libertarian]

So it’s ok for the person to not perform their duties for 3 or 4 years until the election. The city and the people could have to pay fines or bearrested. If she is elected, let the taxpayers deal with the consequences, as her employer.

[morphing libertarian]

Judges cn fine and hold in contempt. Of course they have no amy or officers. Where’s andy jackson when we need him?

[morphing libertarian]

I don’t disagree with much of what you say, but an employee trying to impose their beliefs on an employer they have a contract with to perform duties proscribed by the employer is putting the cart before the horse. The employer has the perogative.

[morphing libertarian]

self employed is still the employer. Uou will spin and say anything to avoid the obvious. I got ti9red of attempting your remediation last night. Now I’m exhausted. And the subject is moot and boring. Let me know when the revolution begins. Oh you saw the decision was without dissent. I guess all 9 of them are evil.

[Ray76]

> decision was without dissent

What decision?

[Ray76]

Obergefell was 5-4

[Diamond]

an elected official is an employee of the public. The UUSC voted unanimously. The represent the people in their capacity as one branch of government.

I presume by "UUSC", you mean the Supreme Court of the United States. The elected official is an employee of the people of that county, yes. And I'm sure that elected official took an oath to uphold the laws of Kentucky, which state, in part:

Kentucky Revised Statutes

402.020 Other prohibited marriages.

(1) Marriage is prohibited and void:
(a) With a person who has been adjudged mentally disabled by a court of competent jurisdiction;
(b) Where there is a husband or wife living, from whom the person marrying has not been divorced;
(c) When not solemnized or contracted in the presence of an authorized person or society;
(d) Between members of the same sex;
(e) Between more than two (2) persons;
...etc.

There is no KY statute that authorizes the clerk to issue such a "marriage" license. Since when is the USSC authorized to draft and pass Kentucky Statutes? I must have missed that part.

Cordially,

[i_robot73]

I don’t see a problem. Was ‘gay marriage’ passed in TN?? If not, judges have no authority to write Law = there IS NO Law on the books to enforce.

[Ray76]

Let’s see the United States Supreme Court commandeer the Kentucky Legislature and order them to write a law... and Kentucky rightly refuse.

The lawlessness of the USSC has become an utter outrage.

[morphing libertarian]

You may have missed the day in class when they covered the USSC and it’s authority. And case law IS law.

Local and state laws get overturned by courts all the time. You can argue no authority, but good luck with that. In this last case, they ruled unanimously.

[morphing libertarian]

Thanx. I must have misread. I saw a report on Facebook, that font of journalism.

[morphing libertarian]

this is all I found on fox

Justice Elena Kagan, who oversees the 6th district, referred Davis’ request to the full court, which denied the stay without comment.

[PapaBear3625]

So it’s ok for the person to not perform their duties for 3 or 4 years until the election. The city and the people could have to pay fines or be arrested.

The Clerk would still fill out marriage certificates for non-gay couples, and gay couples could get their certificates elsewhere.

As for being arrested: Arrested, by whom?

My point up-thread was that a Court's ability to enforce compliance is dependent upon the Executive branch's resources and cooperation. I can see Obama sending in troops to enforce compliance. Would President Trump or President Cruz?

[Ray76]

Not hearing a case is not a ruling.

[Jim Noble]

Your position as I understand is:

Constitution :: Case Law
Torah :: Talmud

Is this correct?

If so, how do you square that with “all legislative powers herein granted...”?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Not just while we're at home, not just while we're at church, in the workplace too. The founding fathers put NO LIMITS on where one could follow their religious and moral convictions.

Could a Catholic County Clerk refuse to issue marriage licenses to divorced people?

Could a Quaker County Clerk refuse to issue gun licenses?

Could a Mormon County Clerk refuse to issue a business license to Starbucks?

[Lurking Libertarian]

In all states, including yours, ballot efforts to normalize homosexual marriage were defeated.

Not all-- same-sex marriage was approved by voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington State, and by elected legislatures in Washington, D.C., Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode island and Vermont.

[morphing libertarian]

the same way I square the power of the USSC in the constitution. If you want the clerks to defy the court it will be outside the law and this administration will come down on the county or city and open the office themselves and issue the license the way past presidents opened university and school doors after court orders.

[morphing libertarian]

Oh, OK. Then just move on.

[morphing libertarian]

This president will send people to issue the licenses if the county doesn’t and someone or the county will be fined or go to jail. You doubt he would use his power that way?