^ the first one is analogous to the clerk refusing to issue a marriage license.

Well, I suppose now judges can refuse to grant divorces if they believe divorce is a sin. A cop can arrest an adulterer if he is offended by that sin. Or arrest a remarried person for both of the above, plus bigamy.

 

Or a cop could stop pulling over speeders because he has a moral objection to speed laws.

^ that is not analogous to the clerk. Only the one about the judge works as a comparison.

^ the first one is analogous to the clerk refusing to issue a marriage license.

 

Does that make it okay?

Does that make it okay?

 

You didn't notice or don't recall what I said here (though I don't expect you to)...

 

In case anyone is interested, here is a copy of Judge Bunning's order. I understand why he came to the conclusion that he did, but the entire analysis contradicts the ultimate outcome of temporarily staying the case.

 

It is a pretty short, but interesting read if anybody wants a little bit better understanding of the actual arguments and where they stand today.

 

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/kentucky_SSM_20150817.pdf

 

I actually agree with the conclusions of this statement. It is the logical outworking of the SCOTUS decision.

 

I just think the SCOTUS was terribly wrong, even illogical in its decision.

 

The case the clerk is making in Rowan County is going to run out of legs soon. Then a decision will be forced. I said from the beginning that I didn't know if it was an ethical obligation to act as she did. In other words, I think it may be possible for her to maintain her opposition to gay marriage while at the same time exercising her job as County Clerk and issue marriage licenses. In fact, I used the analogy of an attorney participating in a divorce case. Some Christian attorney's find a way they can do that. Judges have to do the same thing.

 

I will say i am glad the County Clerk is challenging this law. I don't think she will win but I want this law challenged in as many ways as possible so that the parameters and implications are clarified sooner rather than later. This will also allow those who oppose this law to see what they are up against and maybe find a better strategy to limit it or lessen its adverse effects (obviously from the perspective of those who think it is a bad ruling).

 

So, "Is it okay?" Yes, it is okay that the clerk is challenging the law. Apparently, the law allows the challenge for a limited time, until the legal questions are answered. So yes, it is okay for a citizen to seek clarification on how a new law that she thinks is wrong-headed impacts her role as a clerk. Once that clarification comes and is ruled final, the clerk will have to decide whether she will resign or be willing to issue the license to same-sex couples.

 

What is not okay, is the SCOTUS ruling in the first place.

By virtue of my job I sometimes hear things that are being worked on that I never tell. BUT in this case I will let something I heard out. I was told that when the general assembly comes back to work in Kentucky, that the state of Kentucky will go the same route as Texas. All marriage licences will be online only. And this would have already been done had the Governor called a special session. Seems the majority of the voters have expressed their dislike to the law makers of this ruling. Now do I know if this will happen? Not 100%. But this info is not some light hearted gossip from a courthouse steps.

That's interesting. Tell me how this will impact the Clerk in Rowan County? Does this mean she won't be issuing the license?

We have live babies being cut up and sold as parts from PP and we are still talking about 2 gay guys not being issued marriage license.

 

America is morally pitiful.

ref I agree with you on most things, but I am capable of carrying out more than one train of thought or conversation at once.

That's interesting. Tell me how this will impact the Clerk in Rowan County? Does this mean she won't be issuing the license?

 

I dont know. If they can drag it out in court long enough she will be home free. From everything I have been told the majority do not want to do this.

Just like the supreme court ruling that most people dont agree with, a few have made the rules for the majority. Which I will say again will at some point, will stop when the majority don't want it like its clearly on this subject. Everyone saw what the vote was when it was put to the ballot. I will also state again just because the government or liberal judges say something is right does not make it right.

ref I agree with you on most things.

 

Talk about something I never thought I'd see on here from anyone...:lol2:

I dont know. If they can drag it out in court long enough she will be home free. From everything I have been told the majority do not want to do this.

 

I have no idea when the General Assembly returns, but unless the 6th Circuit moves quickly, she has 10 days.

 

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2289037/updatedorder-millervdavis.pdf

Just like the supreme court ruling that most people dont agree with, a few have made the rules for the majority. Which I will say again will at some point, will stop when the majority don't want it like its clearly on this subject. Everyone saw what the vote was when it was put to the ballot. I will also state again just because the government or liberal judges say something is right does not make it right.

 

...but it makes it the law that nobody is above (when it is the Supreme Court).

I agree that marriage licenses should and can be done by the state. But this lawsuit is still going to go forward. There will be a damage award and attorneys fees since this is a civil rights violation. So even if those denied a marriage license get $1 in damages, Rowan can still be hit with all the attorneys fees these couples have racked up