….and of course, we all know that every ruling that comes down from the Supreme Court should be beholden to all Citizens in America, because they make the rules…or is that another branch of government, I forget.

 

America, last time I checked, still allows for challenges to Supreme Court rulings, they can go on for decades because people disagree with them….or is that just a fundamental misunderstanding of our governmental system ?

 

She, and others, have the right (and some would argue the moral obligation) to challenge Supreme Court rulings they believe are erroneous. In fact, "separate but equal" was the Supreme Court ruling before it was challenged and became "separate is inherently unequal."

 

The question is what happens UNTIL the Supreme Court changes the law? The answer, is that she follows the law. If she wants to hand out a pamphlet with each marriage certificate she issues stating that she disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling and is working in her non-working hours with Liberty Counsel to challenge and overturn it, I wouldn't like it but I am not sure it is unconstitutional and is definitely the kind of thing that should be addressed at the ballot box.

 

If you are playing baseball and you think you are safe at first but the umpire says you are out, you or your Manager may get the 1B umpire to check with the crew chief to see if he had a better view. If he confirms you are out, you need to go to the dugout. She is the equivalent of the knothole kid sitting on 1B because they think they are safe when the controlling authorities disagree.

I'm curious as to why some keep bringing up that the couples that are going to Rowan Co for their marriage license could just go somewhere else, so they must really want the publicity and attention for their cause don't also bring up that the Rowan Co clerk must be doing the same thing. Why does she need to sue the governor? Why not just refuse to issue licenses? Isn't she asking for attention for her cause, too?

I didn't "bark up any tree" about separation of church and state. That was you. Clearly, she is a government employee and doesn't expect to have to comply with upholding the government's laws. Clearly, this is a classic example OF separation of church and state. If she is so into "traditional marriage" (she must be, she married traditionally four times) and can't perform her job, then she should resign.

I didn't say you were the one who mentioned separation of church and state first. I knew that was me, never denied that. In your replies to me you were talking about what I said about church and state....or did you forget about that? I also said in my last post that maybe that wasn't the best area to go where this is concerned and maybe it is more suited for the anti-discrimination laws.

 

Here is a refresher for you

No new law was created. Existing laws were ruled unconstitutional.

 

Wouldn't this be exactly separation of church and state? She works for the government. She chose that job and no one is forcing her to stay. However, if she stays, she is expected to do her job.

 

Now with that cleared up, I thought you said it wasn't the law, and now you are admitting that it is the law? So are you now agreeing with me or not? I'm really confused.

She, and others, have the right (and some would argue the moral obligation) to challenge Supreme Court rulings they believe are erroneous. In fact, "separate but equal" was the Supreme Court ruling before it was challenged and became "separate is inherently unequal."

 

The question is what happens UNTIL the Supreme Court changes the law? The answer, is that she follows the law. If she wants to hand out a pamphlet with each marriage certificate she issues stating that she disagrees with the Supreme Court ruling and is working in her non-working hours with Liberty Counsel to challenge and overturn it, I wouldn't like it but I am not sure it is unconstitutional and is definitely the kind of thing that should be addressed at the ballot box.

 

If you are playing baseball and you think you are safe at first but the umpire says you are out, you or your Manager may get the 1B umpire to check with the crew chief to see if he had a better view. If he confirms you are out, you need to go to the dugout. She is the equivalent of the knothole kid sitting on 1B because they think they are safe when the controlling authorities disagree.

 

Or you continue to argue until you are restricted to the dugout or ejected from the game. Disagreement takes on many forms and has a variety of consequences. I have no issue with her approach if she disagrees, but we can't just pout and say she "must" do something...human nature allows us to make our choices, it would seem she is making her statement in her own way, full aware of the potential consequences.

 

Just because we don't like how she is protesting doesn't mean we can will her to do it a different way

That is a lame argument. That is like saying nothing is forcing the "Blacklivesmatter" folks from

staying in this country. If they don't like it then get out.

 

Again, it simply comes down to Seperation of church and statr. Also she got the job BEFORE this "law" was created.

 

Here's part of your confusion. In your last line you referred to a newly created law (or "law" as you said) was created. No new law was created. Hope that clears it up for you.

I didn't say you were the one who mentioned separation of church and state first. I knew that was me, never denied that. In your replies to me you were talking about what I said about church and state....or did you forget about that? I also said in my last post that maybe that wasn't the best area to go where this is concerned and maybe it is more suited for the anti-discrimination laws.

 

Here is a refresher for you

 

 

Now with that cleared up, I thought you said it wasn't the law, and now you are admitting that it is the law? So are you now agreeing with me or not? I'm really confused.

 

You certainly were the one that brought up church and state separation. I've been the one arguing that it was a really, really bad argument that actually backfires.

I'm curious as to why some keep bringing up that the couples that are going to Rowan Co for their marriage license could just go somewhere else, so they must really want the publicity and attention for their cause don't also bring up that the Rowan Co clerk must be doing the same thing. Why does she need to sue the governor? Why not just refuse to issue licenses? Isn't she asking for attention for her cause, too?

 

It's only "asking for attention" if it's a cause they don't support. To the hardcore church crowd, it's a one-way street.

You certainly were the one that brought up church and state separation. I've been the one arguing that it was a really, really bad argument that actually backfires.

That is what I said...I was the one who brought it up first.

 

Not sure how that was confusing, but if it clears your mind of any worry I will say it again for you. I brought up church and state first. With that said, it isn't a bad argument especially in today's political correctness overload and I brought up several examples why it is a double standard these days on how it is treated. Christmas is the perfect example.

 

As far as the law, you said it wasn't a law that they had to hand out same sex marriage licenses, if it isn't part of the law that the SC ruled on, then why is this even a topic? and why did the SC (Supreme Court) have to make a ruling in the first place? As I already showed, the SC job is to interpret the law. If it had nothing to do with the law why were they even involved? She isn't breaking the law so why is this headed to court most probably?

Or you continue to argue until you are restricted to the dugout or ejected from the game. Disagreement takes on many forms and has a variety of consequences. I have no issue with her approach if she disagrees, but we can't just pout and say she "must" do something...human nature allows us to make our choices, it would seem she is making her statement in her own way, full aware of the potential consequences.

 

Just because we don't like how she is protesting doesn't mean we can will her to do it a different way

 

Perhaps we agree more than it may appear. She is certainly entitled to protest that way, so long as she is willing to accept the consequences for doing so. The baseball manager that gets ejected or restricted to the dugout may have to deal with a principal or owner. If that same manager refuses to leave and the police have to be called to escort them out OR the team forfeits the game because of their refusal to leave when instructed, will deal with consequences. I would argue that is where she now finds herself.

 

If she continues to refuse, is held in contempt and jailed, maybe she will write "Letters from a Summit, KY Jail" and be part of the civil disobedience that leads the Supreme Court to someday overturn the recent ruling. My guess is she won't do that, but I've been wrong before.

Good for her that she feels that strongly for her beliefs.

 

That said, do your job or step down. I don't care what laws were in place when she took office and I don't care what has changed. She is an elected official that works for the people of her county. To say that a citizen of Rowan County can just go to another county is dumb. I pay enough county tax in Henderson County every year that to even suggest I go to a different county to conduct my business blows me a way.

It's only "asking for attention" if it's a cause they don't support. To the hardcore church crowd, it's a one-way street.

 

The exact same can be said for the hardcore liberal crowd...there is no room for compromise...ask the baker who didn't want to bake a wedding cake.

Who cares when the law changed in relation to her being elected?

 

Say I'm holding my current job and my boss comes to me and says "hey, every day you must now put together a report that details XYZ." Well what if I don't wanna do that? Can I refuse to do so on the premise that when I took the job that wasn't a requirement? No, I can't. I can either get on board with the change, be fired or resign. Same thing applies here.

A minor difference...

you are hired by a person who represents the business and fired by a person (the boss) who represents the business.

 

The County Clerk was hired (elected) by a bunch of people who probably agree with her stance, in fact, we might as well say the majority agrees with her because they helped pass a state law that prohibited the Commonwealth from recognizing anything other than traditional marriage. It was a 75% majority that passed that law.

 

Now she is being fired by whom? Not the people who elected her. The SCOTUS has no authority to fire her. Who is responsible for canning a duly elected official? Surely there is a mechanism for this. Whoever does this is not representing the will of the people to whom they answer.

Good for her that she feels that strongly for her beliefs.

 

That said, do your job or step down. I don't care what laws were in place when she took office and I don't care what has changed. She is an elected official that works for the people of her county. To say that a citizen of Rowan County can just go to another county is dumb. I pay enough county tax in Henderson County every year that to even suggest I go to a different county to conduct my business blows me a way.

 

It's equally dumb to go to a courthouse that you know isn't giving our marriage licenses IMO.

It's equally dumb to go to a courthouse that you know isn't giving our marriage licenses IMO.

So it's dumb to go to the County Court Clerks office and expect them to perform the duties of their office? The duties my county tax money pays them to perform?