So the gay folks have an agenda but she is standing up for her beliefs?

 

They are trying to make her go against her belief also.

spin spin spin spin

Not everyone is denying the marriage license. If its so important to them then I would do whatever.

 

You guys are so far off on this. Basically you are saying that if ANY law in this country violates a religious believe, NOT THE FREE PRACTICE OF RELIGION, but religious beliefs, then you can just decide not to follow them??? How exactly does that preserve a Union?

Lots of things to digest in the prior posts. MOST of it good & civil dialogue. Here's what I will try to add:

 

1 - judicial review: Yes, there was a question before Marbury v. Madison whether the judicial branch had the authority to "overrule" a co-equal branch of the government (be it the legislature or the executive). That has now been settled law for 225 years. If Huckabee or others want to relitigate the role of the judiciary since they now disagree with them, that's a steep hill to climb.

 

2 - power to enforce: there have been discussions about what powers the judiciary have to enforce their rulings. Most notably, LBJ struggled with whether the executive branch had to support the judiciary in integrating the schools in the South by sending in troops. If the executive branch had not, how would the judiciary have responded. The movie Selma shows some of this struggle. In reality, we have not answered the question as the executive has always realized that the rule of law and role of the judiciary must be supported by its co-equal branches.

 

3 - judicial law making v. law interpretation: Those who claim all SCOTUS did was declare those statutes defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman unconstitutional and claiming that gay couples are not permitted to get licenses until the legislatures pass laws redefining marriage and instructing clerks how to fill out the new forms are wrong (regardless of their motives for wanting to see it that way). Just as those impacted by "separate is inherently unequal" in Brown v. Bd. of Educ. did not have to wait for the southern legislatures to convene and pass legislation integrating the schools (see #2 above) and those interracial couples impacted by Loving v. VA did not have to wait for the VA legislature to convene and pass legislation allowing for them to marry, these couples do not have to wait for the KY legislature to convene and overturn the prior law and issue a new law allowing for same sex marriage.

SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN

 

And if a duly elected Quaker clerk refused to issue you a gun license because of his firmly held religious belief in pacifism, you'd go to the next county to get your gun license?

Lots of things to digest in the prior posts. MOST of it good & civil dialogue. Here's what I will try to add:

 

1 - judicial review: Yes, there was a question before Marbury v. Madison whether the judicial branch had the authority to "overrule" a co-equal branch of the government (be it the legislature or the executive). That has now been settled law for 225 years. If Huckabee or others want to relitigate the role of the judiciary since they now disagree with them, that's a steep hill to climb.

 

2 - power to enforce: there have been discussions about what powers the judiciary have to enforce their rulings. Most notably, LBJ struggled with whether the executive branch had to support the judiciary in integrating the schools in the South by sending in troops. If the executive branch had not, how would the judiciary have responded. The movie Selma shows some of this struggle. In reality, we have not answered the question as the executive has always realized that the rule of law and role of the judiciary must be supported by its co-equal branches.

 

3 - judicial law making v. law interpretation: Those who claim all SCOTUS did was declare those statutes defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman unconstitutional and claiming that gay couples are not permitted to get licenses until the legislatures pass laws redefining marriage and instructing clerks how to fill out the new forms are wrong (regardless of their motives for wanting to see it that way). Just as those impacted by "separate is inherently unequal" in Brown v. Bd. of Educ. did not have to wait for the southern legislatures to convene and pass legislation integrating the schools (see #2 above) and those interracial couples impacted by Loving v. VA did not have to wait for the VA legislature to convene and pass legislation allowing for them to marry, these couples do not have to wait for the KY legislature to convene and overturn the prior law and issue a new law allowing for same sex marriage.

 

The last part is what I have been getting at with my posts in the Bevin thread.

 

Ironically, my mother always sang this song and butchered the words, "I fought Dorothy and Dorothy always wins". :lol2:

SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN

 

So that's your answer when you really don't have an answer?

Ironically, my mother always sang this song and butchered the words, "I fought Dorothy and Dorothy always wins". :lol2:

Have you seen Dorothy....

Imagine that.

 

Firstly, I never addressed you once on Conway, so you can have that conversation with someone else. You're adding to what I originally called you out about to avoid addressing those comments logically in order to somehow backhandedly justify what you said.

 

Secondly, you said, and I am addressing this now more times than I care to count all for the sake of spoon feeding it to you, therefore subjecting myself to your crazy little rabbit hole. You win on that one I suppose, because here I am AGAIN explaining it to you.

 

You said...

 

"Further, just like those that say people like Ref would be up in arms if a Muslim elected officer refused to do part of their job based on belief are hypocrites, I'm also seeing a bit of hypocrisy from those that are calling for this woman's head because her position differs from theirs"

 

You defined later after I called you on it that "calling for her head" was in reference to people wanting her to resign, or go to jail.

 

She's actually breaking the law, so what is unreasonable about what they think ought to happen?

 

Where's the hypocrisy related to them wanting that, and saying that people supporting her would be up in arms if a Muslim elected officer refused to do part of their job based on belief?

 

Both camps supporting her, or not supporting her would likely instantly think that the Muslim shouldn't have the position if they weren't going to do their job, but because she is Christian and you agree with her, you'll overlook it whereas you likely wouldn't if she was a Muslim.

 

If anyone is the hypocrite, it's you. But of course you're incapable of seeing that. You've been incapable of grasping what I've been saying already for the umteenth time, so I have no faith that you're capable or willing now, as we are ringing this rag out about as much as it can be.

 

Just because people don't agree with her, while she is actually breaking the law, does not make them hypocrites, making your commentary on this invalid, weak, and illogical.

 

This specific thing that I am calling you out about is not a matter of opinion. It's just me calling you out for flat out making a false illogical statement.

 

But there again your illogical mind will likely not grasp that while you keep defending your nonsense and piling on more crap to try to take the light off of what I originally called you out about in the first place.

 

People in your camp have suggested that America is really going to hell if some Christians can't exercise their beliefs. They are most definitely free to, but that doesn't legally give them the right to discriminate against others.

 

What would really make America go to hell is if we start letting people of various faiths pick and choose, and decide right from wrong, and ultimately discriminate on matters of state and federal law all because of their beliefs.

 

Separation of church and state has its basis on keeping order, in order to keep that sort of scattered chaos out of the law.

 

We allow her to do what she's trying to do, and all hell will really break loose, making our free country no longer a free one. Is America perfect? Not at all, but if you really want to see it become even more so imperfect, then let what she's up to stand as a precedent.

 

You have the freedom to have your religious beliefs, but with it also have the sense in realizing that your beliefs are not the only ones in existence, and to avoid the undoubtable chaos within the law, the law needs to remain neutral, and free of religious influence.

 

If you can't see that then you make no more sense than a radical extremist Muslim. Different religions, but the rhetoric is all the same.

 

First: I think Jack Conway should have resigned when he opted not to do his job and appeal the federal court ruling, especially after the governor decided that it would be appealed regardless. He's an elected official who refused to do his job. You don't agree. Fine.

 

Second: As soon as SCOTUS ruled Davis should have resigned if she felt so strongly about this. I don't agree with her on this. She's an elected official refusing to do her job. We agree on this. Fine.

 

Third: Some people on her have defended Davis based on the first amendment and her right to practice her religion, I don't agree with that. She should have done her job or resigned. We agree on that.

 

Fourth: Some people have pointed out that if a Muslim or a Quaker elected official cited religious objection to doing part of their job the people that are defending Davis would be outraged. I agree.

 

Fifth: The hypocrisy I am pointing to has NOTHING to do with the SCOTUS ruling or differing opinions on it. Nor does it have anything to do with Davis' religious freedom. It has everything to do with 2 elected officials refusing to do part of their job. Many of the same people that believe Davis should have resigned (and for what it's worth since she's ignoring court rulings I full expect and agree with her being fined or jailed) defend Conway for in effect doing the same thing she did, refusing to do his job. The people that are OK with Conway not doing his job are now piling on people that are OK Davis not doing her job. That's the hypocrisy I saw and still see. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with either the SCOTUS ruling or Davis' subsequent actions. It has everything to do with 2 elected officials refusing to do their job based on their beliefs and the differing reactions of people to those officials based on weather they agree with the position of the elected officials.

SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN

 

How about you try answering questions instead of constantly deflecting?

 

Oh, I know why. Because JPA brought up a point that trumps your ridiculous way of thinking.

Have you seen Dorothy....

No, but I'm guessing she's on the courthouse steps in Ashland.

So I don't have to look through the past few pages of this thread, can anyone tell me what time the hearing is today?

First: I think Jack Conway should have resigned when he opted not to do his job and appeal the federal court ruling, especially after the governor decided that it would be appealed regardless. He's an elected official who refused to do his job. You don't agree. Fine.

 

Second: As soon as SCOTUS ruled Davis should have resigned if she felt so strongly about this. I don't agree with her on this. She's an elected official refusing to do her job. We agree on this. Fine.

 

Third: Some people on her have defended Davis based on the first amendment and her right to practice her religion, I don't agree with that. She should have done her job or resigned. We agree on that.

 

Fourth: Some people have pointed out that if a Muslim or a Quaker elected official cited religious objection to doing part of their job the people that are defending Davis would be outraged. I agree.

 

Fifth: The hypocrisy I am pointing to has NOTHING to do with the SCOTUS ruling or differing opinions on it. Nor does it have anything to do with Davis' religious freedom. It has everything to do with 2 elected officials refusing to do part of their job. Many of the same people that believe Davis should have resigned (and for what it's worth since she's ignoring court rulings I full expect and agree with her being fined or jailed) defend Conway for in effect doing the same thing she did, refusing to do his job. The people that are OK with Conway not doing his job are now piling on people that are OK Davis not doing her job. That's the hypocrisy I saw and still see. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with either the SCOTUS ruling or Davis' subsequent actions. It has everything to do with 2 elected officials refusing to do their job based on their beliefs and the differing reactions of people to those officials based on weather they agree with the position of the elected officials.

 

I never once commented on Conway when I addressed you, and yet you still act as if I did, and somehow conclude what I think about it.

 

Not fine.

 

I address you on that one post where you said: (and this is getting old real fast)...

 

"Further, just like those that say people like Ref would be up in arms if a Muslim elected officer refused to do part of their job based on belief are hypocrites, I'm also seeing a bit of hypocrisy from those that are calling for this woman's head because her position differs from theirs"

 

...and now after our ridiculous back and forth insanity you say that those words mean this:

 

"Fifth: The hypocrisy I am pointing to has NOTHING to do with the SCOTUS ruling or differing opinions on it. Nor does it have anything to do with Davis' religious freedom. It has everything to do with 2 elected officials refusing to do part of their job. Many of the same people that believe Davis should have resigned (and for what it's worth since she's ignoring court rulings I full expect and agree with her being fined or jailed) defend Conway for in effect doing the same thing she did, refusing to do his job. The people that are OK with Conway not doing his job are now piling on people that are OK Davis not doing her job. That's the hypocrisy I saw and still see. It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with either the SCOTUS ruling or Davis' subsequent actions. It has everything to do with 2 elected officials refusing to do their job based on their beliefs and the differing reactions of people to those officials based on weather they agree with the position of the elected officials."

 

Hardly any of that is what I originally called you on, as it also would suggest that you are responding to things that I didn't even address.

 

Your repetitive attempts to avoid responding to what I called you on without making it murky and cloudy still doesn't make me, or anyone who might care, forget what you originally said and that it's a false illogical statement. It's permanently on record in this thread.

 

You're wasting words on me as you won't logically follow point of topic, and I'm wasting words on you because you're incapable of basic logic.

 

It's official... the rag has been wrung dry with nothing accomplished, but an excessive amount of time wasted.

Lots of things to digest in the prior posts. MOST of it good & civil dialogue. Here's what I will try to add:

 

1 - judicial review: Yes, there was a question before Marbury v. Madison whether the judicial branch had the authority to "overrule" a co-equal branch of the government (be it the legislature or the executive). That has now been settled law for 225 years. If Huckabee or others want to relitigate the role of the judiciary since they now disagree with them, that's a steep hill to climb.

 

2 - power to enforce: there have been discussions about what powers the judiciary have to enforce their rulings. Most notably, LBJ struggled with whether the executive branch had to support the judiciary in integrating the schools in the South by sending in troops. If the executive branch had not, how would the judiciary have responded. The movie Selma shows some of this struggle. In reality, we have not answered the question as the executive has always realized that the rule of law and role of the judiciary must be supported by its co-equal branches.

 

3 - judicial law making v. law interpretation: Those who claim all SCOTUS did was declare those statutes defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman unconstitutional and claiming that gay couples are not permitted to get licenses until the legislatures pass laws redefining marriage and instructing clerks how to fill out the new forms are wrong (regardless of their motives for wanting to see it that way). Just as those impacted by "separate is inherently unequal" in Brown v. Bd. of Educ. did not have to wait for the southern legislatures to convene and pass legislation integrating the schools (see #2 above) and those interracial couples impacted by Loving v. VA did not have to wait for the VA legislature to convene and pass legislation allowing for them to marry, these couples do not have to wait for the KY legislature to convene and overturn the prior law and issue a new law allowing for same sex marriage.

 

About #1 , and helping me understand it in simple terms, basically because I can only comprehend simple. Isn't the ruling kinda like when you ask your parents why, and they say "because I said so?" In essence they granted themselves the authority to rule over law.

 

This is is a good history/civics lesson for me though. I thought that the SCOTUS, based on the constitution, was given the authority to make decisions about laws and could strike them down if ruled unconstitutional.