Are you saying they SHOULDN'T be telling the state how to handle it or are you saying they LEGALLY cannot tell the state how to handle it?

 

Well now that's a loaded question: I will definitely say they SHOULDN'T be telling the state how to handle it, but I believe in that position for all issues, not just this particular issue. The noticeable silence from our state AG and governor is deafening.

 

As to LEGALLY cannot tell the state how to handle it, that is loaded. I'm not sure that this is enforceable as it has come down because it's defining a law rather than rendering a decision IMO.

 

To answer your question with a question: can the Federal government "legally" tell Colorado they cannot decriminalize marijuana ? And if so, why hasn't the Federal government done anything ?

I know personally several of the clerks who have not yet been asked to issue the marriage licence to a same sex couple. When they are they will refuse also. What happens when 60+ clerks refuse to issue them? Then Houston we have a problem, which is probably going to happen unless they get this changed to online like the clerks are wanting.

 

I'd wager the outcome of tomorrow's court date will have an impact on how they'll act when the first gay couple comes looking for a license.

You would lose. Not everyone is spineless and have no morals.

I will judge a woman who has had 4 husbands and became impregnated with children with #4 while still married to #3 . I have a very hard time listening to Christian rhetoric from a woman like that. Call me a bad person.

 

I understand that if she was trying to preach to you about how you are wrong or whatever, but if that woman does nothing to you or says nothing to you...what good does it do you to judge her? Does it make you feel a little better about yourself?

If you all would look back at the TV footage where the Rally was held for the Clerk, you would recognize a lot of elected officials there in support. Heck Bevin has come out and gave her his full support.

You would lose. Not everyone is spineless and have no morals.

 

Are you saying that you think all 51 that are currently refusing will continue to do so if Judge Bunning puts Ms Davis in jail?

I understand that if she was trying to preach to you about how you are wrong or whatever, but if that woman does nothing to you or says nothing to you...what good does it do you to judge her? Does it make you feel a little better about yourself?

 

Short answer, no. I just hate hypocrisy. She's inviting drama for no reason. Don't give me the religious belief stuff. THIS IS NOT THE WOMAN THAT I WANT FIGHTING THAT BATTLE FOR US. I don't want her representing Christianity.

Short answer, no. I just hate hypocrisy. She's inviting drama for no reason. Don't give me the religious belief stuff. THIS IS NOT THE WOMAN THAT I WANT FIGHTING THAT BATTLE FOR US. I don't want her representing Christianity.

 

I will admit that at first I chuckled at her history.

 

However, taking a step back I have to ask myself if I'm the one in the wrong. Am I saying that because she erred/sinned in the past that she cannot change her ways and will permanently have the proverbial scarlet letter pinned to her chest?

 

If she truly changed (and how would I EVER truly know) how can I doubt her current motives?

I will admit that at first I chuckled at her history.

 

However, taking a step back I have to ask myself if I'm the one in the wrong. Am I saying that because she erred/sinned in the past that she cannot change her ways and will permanently have the proverbial scarlet letter pinned to her chest?

 

If she truly changed (and how would I EVER truly know) how can I doubt her current motives?

 

I don't doubt her motives, I really don't care what they are for her personally. Her projected motives are religious based, and a woman like that, w/ this type of intolerance is not who I want fighting my battle. She wants to fight this on the steps of her church if the state requires her church to accept gay marriage, I'd be right beside her.

 

In my opinion, she's just being stubborn now, OR...is being backed by a religious group to upset the apple cart.

You would lose. Not everyone is spineless and have no morals.

 

So if a clerk does their job they are spineless and have no morals? Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

I'll bite...but not on that one. I'm curious about the lack of discussion about Federalism on this one. This isn't an individual issue, this is a state issue. I'm not a believer that the Federal government should be telling my state how to handle this, irrespective of the SC decision. The people of the Commonwealth have spoken on this issue....where is Jack Conway anyway ?

 

It's a valid point except precedence was set with Supreme Court rulings and Civil Rights legislations. It took the Federal Government to mandate the law to the states who both refused to change their state laws and/or refused to adhere to the rulings.

I believe you are correct, I don't know about most as some polls have it 50 / 50, but I do believe the squeaky wheel is getting the grease.

 

Maybe in Kentucky (I have not seen a number for just the Commonwealth), but nationwide poll numbers show supporters against same sex marriage around 37%. Those for it around 58%. The rest are in the "I don't care crowd" which in my view is a vote for gay marriage. When presented with that it was refuted on here that they don't believe and people in a voting booth would reflect differently. Maybe that is true, but statistically speaking that is a sizable gap to overcome within the confines of a voting booth.

I haven't had much to say on this topic, but I can't believe this is still an issue. The clerk's job is to issue marriage licenses. The job isn't to define marriage or who can get married. If it were, the clerk could deny marriage licenses to atheists, Catholics, minorities, sinners, etc. according to their beliefs about marriage. This is silly.

You would lose. Not everyone is spineless and have no morals.

 

So getting divorced 3 times and getting knocked up by husband #4 while married to husband #2 , and having husband #3 adopt said kids is having morals? We clearly have didn't views on what morals are.

 

And doing the job you were elected to do is not being spineless it's called being a public servant.

Kim Davis has filed a 31 page injunction to halt her contempt motion. Here it is if anyone is interested.

 

http://juryverdicts.net/Injunction.pdf