I just hope Kim Davis will one day have a marriage that lasts aslong as Elton Johns!

Federal judges are not elected, they are appointed.

 

Lifetime appointment. Subject only to impeachment by Congress. Suspect re-election does not play a role in this matter.

 

NOTE: I read somewhere that the County Judge Executive can issue marriage licenses when the Clerk is "away." All parties agreed the Clerk was not "away," in the litigation. If she gets tossed in jail on a contempt charge, I am guessing that would qualify as "away" and the issue would fall to the County Judge Executive. No idea who that is in Rowan County, but would hope they would instruct deputy clerks to comply and issue marriage certificates.

 

Would be interesting if that happened and Davis ran against the County Judge Executive in the next election.

Bipsic, the Dred Scott comparison and the account of the aboltionists had a limited purpose--my discussion with Clyde in which he said the law of the land had to be obeyed. I agree that is the normal requirement. Sometimes, in limited circumstances, one cannot. The crisis of conscience for the clerk may be similar. I don't necessarily agree that it is, but no one seems willing to see it from her perspective. They keep asking, "How can she do this?" This is how.

 

Your comparison to the banking situation isn't the same as this. The clerk's actions were required of her prior to June 2015. In 2005 no one would have batted an eye at her refusal. Now she's considered a bigot, or one of the worst human beings you will find.

 

Regarding your other post where you state, "The Court explicitly gave individuals the right to marry through substantive due process." They didn't give individuals the right to marry. All individuals already had that right and could practice that right without hindrance. The court significantly changed the definition and nature of marriage to include same-sex couples. This right is no where to be found in the US constitution with its amendments. This is government overreach. I do agree the clerk is going to get squashed in this dispute. Since SCOTUS has established the law, she will not be allowed to protest for long.

 

Regarding each paragraph:

 

1. I understand why you brought up Dred Scott and have done so in the past. I even stated as much in my post. It's still a stretch. I would venture a guess that the vast majority of Supreme Court decisions are not unanimous, so it isn't a surprise to believe that some might feel that the Court got any given decision wrong. I have a major problem with likening those showing human decency to individuals the government had neglected to another who is grandstanding to prevent individuals a right granted to literally every other adult in the country. Frankly, I don't care at all about her perspective. She is telling everyone she knows better so she is imposing her will on others. That is not ok, and I have no use for her.

 

2. Obviously no one would have batted any eye. You obviously know that the law has changed. I understand that you think we are bigots because we aren't taking her views into account, but honestly her views don't matter. None of us are in the position to usurp the rights of others, and if any of us are in that position, we aren't doing so. Kim Davis is a bigot. She isn't just disagreeing or internally intolerant. She is actively discriminating. Since you believe she isn't discriminating against homosexuals, as if this distinction matters, she is definitely discriminating against same-sex couples.

 

3. This is assuredly not government overreach. You don't like the decision reached, but the Supreme Court didn't do anything the can't or don't ordinarily do. The constitution isn't the answer manual in the back of a textbook. There's an amendment that ensures equal protection of the laws as well as due process prior to a deprivation of liberty. A majority of justices interpreted that clause to have a particular meaning. This isn't a novel concept.

Federal judges are not elected, they are appointed.

 

You're correct, my fault...the general idea is that walking a political line is still in their best interest.

 

If religion were not involved in government you would not have the Constitution of the U.S. nor the Declaration of Independence. The worldview that led to these documents came from the Bible primarily, not secularism. A secular worldview is not a good starting point for "unalienable rights." I agree, no one religion should be sanctioned by the government. Separation there is valuable. But if you think that not allowing religious views to influence public policy is a good idea, I hope you don't live long enough to see it or suffer the natural consequences. Ask those who lived during the Soviet Union or Romania prior to 1989.

 

Have you read The Leviathan? This is where the concept of natural rights and the state of nature without a government come from. It is not based on any theology whatsoever.

 

Locke includes some tenets of Christian theology in his work but the works of Hobbes and Rosseau do not. Both of which are largely responsible for our founding documents more so than the bible.

 

I am not saying that there weren't any Christian principles that influenced our founding, but I would consider it one of many as opposed to the primary.

 

For what it's worth I don't understand why thr government is even in the business of licensing a marriage or union between anyone. I honestly feel that it is none of the government's business who is married or united with who. If anything all marriage licenses should be called civil unions from a legal standpoint anyway as that is all they are as far as any governmental body should be concerned.

For what it's worth I don't understand why thr government is even in the business of licensing a marriage or union between anyone. I honestly feel that it is none of the government's business who is married or united with who. If anything all marriage licenses should be called civil unions from a legal standpoint anyway as that is all they are as far as any governmental body should be concerned.

 

Wholeheartedly agree.

Do you think this should apply to elected officials who have created sanctuary cities?

 

Absolutely but it will never happen.

Absolutely but it will never happen.

 

No, it won't.

Wholeheartedly agree.

 

Who would issue these licenses if govt doesn't?

Who would issue these licenses if govt doesn't?

 

Pep's last sentence answers that question better than I could.

Pep's last sentence answers that question better than I could.

 

I still can't tell who would issue it? An attorney?

I still can't tell who would issue it? An attorney?

 

I think pep was saying the gov't should issue civil union licenses but not marriage licenses.

I think pep was saying the gov't should issue civil union licenses but not marriage licenses.

 

This.

^ please, that's touching but it doesn't work that way now or ever. You can't marry just anybody you love. Publicly recognized marital unions have never been only about who a person loves. This is propaganda we've been hearing for the last ten years, nothing less.

 

I'm not following you. People don't (and never have) gotten married because they love each other?

Kim Davis Unknowingly Signs Marriage Certificate For Same-Sex Co - LEX18.com | Continuous News and StormTracker Weather