Posted on 09/06/2015 5:31:12 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
As a nurse, or a doctor, a catholic cannot administer not take part in birth control.
What does that mean?
Avoiding ob gyn? And family practice?
In Davis’ case it’s easy. Her job is yo administer marriage licenses
As soon as the Supreme Court legalized and sanctions homosexual marriage, it reduces it’s own stature as well as marriage law
If davisvwants to keep her job she looks at the law carefully and decides but she has to go by the rules even when they’re stupid
A catholic priest performing a marriage such as this? Easy. no
...... All cut from the same toilet paper used to smear their crap all over the world. Then complain about the filth.
Just change employer. Stop disturbing the world around you.
Why is it the “job” of the government to license marriages?
Why not? We didn't start the disturbing? Maybe it is time for some disturbing. Lets see where everybody stands.
RE: Just change employer. Stop disturbing the world around you.
1) In this case, the employer of Kim Davis were the residents of her county who VOTED for her.
2) Kentucky does not have a law legalizing gay marriages.
So, who is disturbing who?
There have always been protections for sincere conscientous objections to FORCED acts by the government.
Religion is not the only basis for legitimate civil disobedience.
I wouldn’t. Convinced I am morally in the right I’d do like the left does and make the progressive deviants accommodate me.
Bear in mind that she was elected to office less than a year ago. At that time there was widespread speculation in the media and among the general population that the Supreme Court would legalize same-sex marriage. Obergefell had already been in the court system for a year, and several state bans on it had already been overturned in the courts. She likely would have been aware at the time she chose to run for office that she might well be expected to issue a license to a gay couple somewhere in the future. You can’t say that she got blindsided by this.
Subsection (1) of KRS 402.100 deals with the authorization statement of the clerk and vital information required of the marriage license section proper, including the date and place the license is issued, and the signature of the county clerk or deputy clerk issuing the license.
Subsection (2) of KRS 402.100 provides for a marriage certificate, which includes a statement by the person performing the marriage ceremony that the ceremony was performed. That statement must include the name and title of the person performing the ceremony, the names of the persons married, the date and place of the marriage, and the names of two witnesses. That marriage certificate shall also include a statement by the person performing the marriage ceremony as to his legal qualification under KRS Chapter 402 to perform the ceremony, such statement to include the name of the county or city where his license to perform Kentucky marriages was issued, or, in the case of religious societies authorized by KRS 402.050(1)(c) to solemnize marriages, the name of the city or county where the religious society is incorporated. In view of the 1996 repeal of KRS 402.060, which had required a minister or priest to obtain a license to perform a marriage, that section of KRS 402.100(2) requiring the person performing the marriage to set forth the county or city where his or her license to perform marriage ceremonies was issued is no loner applicable. The marriage certificate must also contain a dated signature of the person performing the ceremony.
Pursuant to KRS 402.100(2)(d), there must be entered in such record a signed statement by the county clerk (or deputy clerk) of the county in which the marriage license was issued that the marriage certificate was recorded. Such statement must indicate the name of the county and the date the marriage certificate was recorded.
Subsection (3) of KRS 402.100 sets forth the information to be entered in the certificate to be delivered by the person solemnizing the marriage ceremony to the parties married.
KRS 402.110 states that the form of marriage license prescribed in KRS 402.100 shall be uniform throughout the state and every license blank shall contain the identical words and figures prescribed by that statute.
Delivery of license
In issuing the license the clerk must deliver it in its entirety to the licensee. The clerk shall see to it that every blank space required to be filled out by the applicants is filled out before delivering it to the licensee.
Issuance when clerk is absent
KRS 402.240 provides that in the absence of the county clerk, or during a vacancy in the office, the county judge/executive may issue the license and, in so doing, he shall perform the duties and incur all the responsibilities of the clerk. The county judge/executive shall return a memorandum to that effect to the clerk and the memorandum shall be recorded as if the license had been issued by the clerk.
http://e-archives.ky.gov/Pubs/AG/clerks_guide_marriage_law%281996%29.htm#Prohibited and Restricted Marriages
Post #32.
Gays have never been discriminated against in getting married. Marriage, by definition, is between one man and one woman, not related(parent/sibling), above the age of consent.
I suppose there is now nothing preventing a clerk to issue a marriage license to father/daughter or to multiple partners, etc.
Does the supreme court decision nullify the marriage laws of Kentucky in their entirety, or only a certain part of it? That is the question. How is the clerk supposed to know if she’s doing her job properly, or if she can delegate parts that she is not comfortable with to someone else if there are not clear guidelines?
Neither. The court's opinion blatantly violates the laws of nature and nature's God and the Constitution. Therefore it is null and void. Kentucky's marriage laws, which accord perfectly with the laws of nature and nature's God and the Constitution, remain fully in effect.
Her position was the Supreme Court’s decision hadn’t been codified by the Kentucky legislature. They can’t order her to interpret laws which haven’t been written yet.
She’s right.
The writer clearly is writing about Hilarious and her failure to discharge her responsibilities as SecState.
Like the SS guards at Aushwitz-Birkenau? Because it’s your job, it’s okay? Or okay because you only marched them to the shower? Or poured the Zyklon through a hole in the roof? Or collected the clothing and personal effects afterward? Who gets to draw the line? Some bureaucrat? Isn’t a personal matter of conscience?
You and I would agree on the morals, but I think there are other legal considerations as well. And throwing someone in jail for contempt in a case like this is completely wrong.
To begin with, note that not only did the Founding States establish the federal government and draft the federal Constitution to deliberately limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers, but the rights protected by the Constitution’s Bill of Right (BoR) originally did not apply to the states.
In other words, even after the Constitution and the BoR were ratified, the states could still make laws to limit our 1st Amendment-protected rights for example, regardless that the feds had no constitutional authority to make such laws.
So even if the Founding States had included an amendment in the BoR which expressly protected the so-called right to gay “marriage,” only the feds had respect such a right, the states having the 10th Amendment protected power to ignore that right and prohibit gay marriage.
It wasn’t until the northern states ignored the Constitution’s Article V amendment process and forced the southern states to agree to ratify the post-Civil War 14th Amendment that the states required themselves to likewise respect any rights that they amend the Constitution to expressly protect.
The question is, given that the states need to amend the Constitution to expressly protect a given right, how is the Supreme Court finding rights pertaning to abortion and gay marriage in the Constitution if the words “abortion” and “marriage” aren’t in the Constitution?
The bottom line is that activist justices have not only been stealing legislative powers to create new PC rights from the bench for decades, but they’ve been breaching the Founding States' division of state and federal government powers evidenced by the 10th Amendment, stealing state legislative powers to establish such rights.
More specifically, activist justices are wrongly ignoring that John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, had clarified that the 14th Amendmnent applies only those rights to the states which the states have amended the Constituion to expressly protect.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” —John Bingham, Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
Again, by declaring things like having an abortion is a constitutional right, likewise for saying that gay marriage is a constitutional right, activist justices are blatantly ignoring that the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect such rights, obligating themselves under the 14th Amendment to respect such rights if they had done so.
Again, constitutional rights are established only when the states ratify proposed amendments which expressly protect such rights as evidenced by the personal rights protected by the Bill of Rights.
But an even bigger problem than activist ustices stealing state powers to legislate things like gay marriage from the bench is the following. The Founding States had given Congress the power to impeach and remove justices who ignore the Constitution. The problem is that the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Senate is not doing its job to protect the states as the Founding States had intended for it to do.
More specifically, given the problem of justices legislating PC rights from the bench, the Senate is refusing to work with the House to impeach and remove such justices from the bench.
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and the activist justices that they confirm along with it.
The solution she and other clerks proposed before the SCOTUS decision was to take the clerk’s name off the certificate.
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.