Lookout 10th Amendment.
Some people prefer doing what is right rather than what is hip.
Get biddy Kintuck.
Bump!
Sorry, but when the first sentence of an article is deeply flawed and is patently false; I tend to disregard the rest of the article.
The story says they are not performing marriages.
Sounds like sexuality is not an issue. They’re just not performing marriages, period.
I don’t think that marrying couples is a mandated duty for a judge, whose responsibilities are primarily in the courtroom. Performing marriages may be optional, and these judges opted out. It is not their main job.
That’s the differences between these judges and the county clerk issue.
For a county clerk, issuing licenses IS a primary duty.
I’m solidly on the Kentucky clerk’s side in refusing to be involved in same-sex marriage, but she has no power to change law. Her only recourse, honestly, is to resign and find a job that doesn’t require her to do unholy things.
This seems somewhat similar to what the judge in Oregon is doing. He too (IIRC), opted out of performing marriages altogether, so as not to bring himself into a position where he might be faced with a situation that conflicted with his religious beliefs. This was by choice, rather than statute (performing marriage is (again, IIRC), an optional, rather than a required, duty for Oregon judges)
Naturally, the local gay activist group bigwig claimed it suggested this particular judge’s decision could be evidence of bias against gay defendants in any possible legal case. It’s not enough to take yourself out of the situation, it’s embrace 100% or be vilified as an enemy when you’re dealing with activists.
Is there more than one county clerk named Kim Davis?
And people said nullification doesn’t work...
The clerks asked them to do that 6 months ago. The dem Governor and House refused. Next election in My should be interesting.
It’s already legal, IMHO, in Kentucky and anywhere else that has a state Constitution and law defining such weddings as not legal.
The US Constitution does not address marriage. The 10th amendment to the US Constitution indicates very clearly that anything not addressed in the Constitution is left to the states or the people.
The woman in Kentucky is following Kentucky State law according to the Kentucky constitution.
Since it is not referred to or present in the U.S. Constitution, IMHO, the Supreme Court should have no standing in it...this issue is left, by constitutional decree, to the states.
Until the 10th amendment is either overturned, or another amendment alters it...the case should be closed in terms of the Supreme Court.
-PJ
Yes and states should refuse to abide by any future federal & USSC rulings where the Constitution of the United States does not give them specific authority to rule in because it is a power of state not the federal government.
USSC Rulings as well as federal courts should be limited to specific case which are the Constitutionally given the federal government and not be instead creating general law by judicial fiat.
Kasich was on TV a few minutes ago {i was at my moms and saw it} saying gay marriage was the law of the land} What part of the United States Constitution does he not understand or has nor read? Marriage is not a federal licensed act nor does it fall under the authority of congress, federal courts, nor POTUS to oversee and rule on. No such power was given them. If they assume such authority and use it then they violate their sworn oath.
”… since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriages in all 50 states."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Activist justices not only wrongly ignored the unique, constitutional Article V power of the states to establish new rights by amending the Constitution to expressly protect specific rights, but also consider the following.
The justices also stole unique, 10th Amendment-protected power to regulate marriage to legislate the fictitious right to gay “marriage” from the bench. (Justices did the same thing to establish the so-called right to have an abortion imo.)
And justices boldly established the so-called right to gay marriage outside the framework of the Constitution because they are undoubtedly confident that the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Senate will not do its job to protect the states as the Founding States had intended for the Senate to do, in this case by working 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 and then refuse to remove from the bench as well.
They already have.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=17446
The Judge ignored all facts of law, and put a Christian in jail because of her beliefs.
No other reason.
We have JoPs refusing in my county, as well, but so far a bizarre reluctance on the part of our legislators to pass a state law.
Just wibbly-wobbly verbal assurances that nobody’s gonna lose their jobs, and prayers that the homonazis will just make nice and take their demands elsewhere.
Probably a lot of people will bow out of government service, since it is no longer in sync with the Judeo-Christian framework.
The burning question: Who is going to run it? The hipsters? Yuppies? Anyone?
(Crickets chirping.)
I see Kentucky has overwhelmingly overridden Beshears Veto and passed Religious Freedom protection. If only Colorado wold put down the hash pipe and follow suite.
Premise is incorrect. The court can't legalize anything. What they said was the states can't restrict marriage. It still takes legislative action to change the laws to deal with marriage actions.