Posted on 09/04/2015 5:12:31 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Bottom line, host Joe Scarborough said, is that if Supreme Court makes a decision, that’s the law of land, right?
“You have to go with it,” Mr. Trump said. “The decision’s been made, and that is the law of the land.”
“She can take a pass and let somebody else in the office do it in terms of religious, so you know, it’s a very … tough situation, but we are a nation, as I said yesterday, we’re a nation of laws,” he said. “And I was talking about borders and I was talking about other things, but you know, it applies to this, also, and the Supreme Court has ruled."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
“Would your opinion change if a Muslim clerk at an alohol control board refused to issue liquor license or a Muslim usda inspector refused to inspect pork?”
I wouldn’t expect accommodation to be possible on the alcohol control board, because that is all they do. I would expect there to be sufficient quantities of beef and chicken to insect for the USDA to accommodate.
Yes... I know. Sorry for the levity.
There’s no “win” for her if she (or her lawyer) takes the route P-Marlowe is describing I agree. This is because exactly as you said the writing is on the wall. Eventually KY will have to re-write the law anyway to comply with the SC ruling. At best, this legal argument only buys her a few months and then she’s really in a bind when the new law comes out authorizing “gay marriage”. It’s winless for her.
We shouldn’t be allowing ourselves to think there’s a “legal” solution to this. The solution is already written into the first amendment. I do not see why it’s such a big deal to allow her to remove her name from certificates of her choosing.
What she should not be required to do, and I believe this is what her lawyer is arguing now, is put her name on the marriage certificates for any “gay marriage”. She should have the option not to do that if she chooses. Those who say “it’s her job” to do so are part of the problem quite frankly. There is a demonstrable, objective difference between signing off on a marriage between a man and woman of different races or creeds and two men or women.
Those who wish to lump this kind of circumstance in with objectively immoral objections such as objections to mixed marriages are part of the problem here. They are literally enabling the destruction of the institution of marriage by refusing to see the clear difference. The persecution of Christians (and Jews) is starting here, with this woman. People need to wake up to this fact before we become a nation of literal Neo-Nazis, just “following the law”.
Let's say that Trump actually gets elected, what will he do when SCOTUS rules on the following:
- That families with "anchor babies" cannot be deported, because they probably will rule that way.
- That people who own homes must be compensated before being deported, because they probably will rule that way.
Trump is running a populist campaign with no ability to deliver his promises, just like Obama did.
People think he can beat Hillary, but they don't realize that Hillary won't be the nominee, she can't win and the Democrats know it.
I am not ready for a revolution just now. Especially because it doesn’t seem that anywhere near like a majority are ready to follow on this issue.
Change hearts and minds.
I agree but there is nothing Trump can do about it. He cannot say we are a nation of laws and then tell this woman to ignore the judge. She has lawyers for the lawfare. She will need them.
Trump needs to stay on point about immigration and jobs. As I said, let the culture warriors fight this fight.
Stop pretending you were for Trump you insufferable troll. How have you not been zotted yet?
Presidents can’t go after judges - Supreme Court or Federal. They are appointed and cannot be removed except by impeachment. Your answer is spot on. What is clear is that most and that includes many on this forum, are ignorant of how our government works. Or doesn’t work, which is what we are seeing in today’s atmosphere.
But it is her job. She runs the office. Whether her signature is on it or not, she is responsible for what comes out of her office.
SCOTUS has ruled that all couples are the same. That is the law of the land right now. She has to abide by it, or honorably resign because she can't.
This is the first thing that disappointed me about Donald Trump.
No one has been denied equal protection of the law.
There is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for any purpose.
The advocates of this novel definition of “marriage” are free to avail themselves of the process prescribed by Kentucky law to change the laws to incorporate this novel description. This in no way inhibits or infringes upon any persons rights of association or their conjugal rights. Again, there is no *right* to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for whatever purpose.
The people of Kentucky have decided that marriage is between man & woman. The federal government has no say in marriage laws, laws which have always been within the purview of the States.
The USSC has no authority to commandeer the legislative process of the States and declare that “same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States” nor is there any such “fundamental right”
There is no 14th Amend “equal protection” issue.
Don’t worry about Pee-mellow. He is just here to stir things up. Classic troll behavior. Claims he is for Trump and then attacks him every chance. Pathetic and obvious.
And what law school did you flunk out of?
The Supreme Court does not have a line item veto.
Do you recall how it was noted that Congress forgot to put a "saving clause" in Obamacare? It was noted that their failure to do so would mean that if ANY PART of Obamacare were found to be unconstitutional, then the whole law would be unconstitutional and void? That is why Roberts was so adamant about finding any way to save it.
Well, the same is true of marriage laws. When a law is passed by the legislature that includes some provision that is found to be unconstitutional, the entire statute that contains the governor's signature is voided and the legislature then needs to rewrite the law and get it passed. If there was another previous statute that was overturned or amended when the unconstitutional law was passed, then that statute goes back into effect.
The Supreme Court voided every state statute that contains the words "Marriage shall be limited to one man and one woman". So those states that have those words are currently operating either under a previous law that did not contain those provisions or they are operating without any marriage laws whatsoever.
And if people can still get marriage licenses without the limitation of "between one man and one woman", then if the State is going to recognize marriages and issue licenses, then it is not merely gay people who can get married, but polygamy is now the law of the land without limitation. Two men and three women? Five women and three men?
Where is the limitation?
Page 5:
Finally, the First Amendment ensures that religions, those who adhere to religious doctrines, and others have protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.
Page 27:
Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.
If the judge is going to cite the Supreme Court ruling, then where is this protection? Were there not other alternatives short of imprisonment that could have taken first, if they were serious about protecting the First Amendment rights, too, during all of this?
-PJ
402.005 Definition of marriage.
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 incum bent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex
This was obviously stuck down
Then there is this law which is the implementing law for writing the license.
402.080 Marriage license required --
Who may issue. No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.
Notice the "the female" referenced in the implementing statue. Only in a heterosexual marriage is there a "the female" so there is no way the clerk can legally issue a marriage license to anyone other than a heterosexual couple. The clerk decided rightly IMHO to simply not issue any marriage licenses rather then discriminate. As noted she is not using this as a defense, she is engaging in civil disobedience. However that does not negative the fact that she is not breaking any laws.
First let me say that I believe and feel that homosexality and gay marriage are more than ‘wrong’. They are an abomination and those who unrepentantly practice such things will find their place in hell. Clear enough?
I am not an expert on the Kentucky Law, however, if you are right, and I can only find a ‘very few’ on an internet search who agree with you, I still think that this is a battle that cannot be won in court of public opinion and will cost Cruz, Huckaby, or Trump a chance of even getting nominated, much less elected. After the election if there was real conservative leadership in the house and senate this battle could be fought out legislatively or legally. Or perhaps others will contest the points of constitutionality you bring up. For now, I say leave Trump alone on this. He’s trying to get elected and is the only one, in my opinion, who has the gonads to fight the media and the establishment and still get elected. Cruz will fight, but has neither the charisma or the money to to what Trump is doing and win a majority. I’m with you, not against you. And, by the way, when did you come to know the Lord Jesus?
In post #134, you can see where he's coming from. He labels God (the one in the Bible) "her god." With that little trick of capitalization, Obama could not have put it more aptly.
Yes, and look how quickly we slide down that slippery slope when this happens.
Lincoln?
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.