True, but that was over ten years ago. Look how quickly views in American society have changed toward gay marriage in that time frame. I will agree that KY is more conservative on the issue than the rest of the nation but I think there is a decent amount of people who back in 2004 (I think 2004) who voted against gay marriage in KY but today probably don't rank that high on their list of areas to worry about politically.

 

Either way, Bevin won't win. GOP did not pick the best candidate this time like they often don't.

 

I don't think it would pass in Kentucky right now.

I don't think it would pass in Kentucky right now.

 

I don't think so either, but it would be interesting to see how (or if) the percentages would change.

If true, remind me not to vote for Bevin.

I think that is a gutsy call for him in this race and one, in my opinion, he should not have made. I think most of the voting electorate will gravitate to the side of supporting the rule of law. We'll see how it all plays out, I guess. My sphere of reference is Louisville. I recognize that some folks out in the state may have a different view.

 

I agree. The republican presidential candidates will also have to tread very lightly on this. They point to Obama left and right claiming he doesn't follow the U.S. Constitution or the law, and if they support her they are ignoring the rule of law that they accuse Obama each week

 

I don't think any presidential candidate wants this question to come up too often.

 

As was mentioned in one of the other threads, Lindsey Graham says she should do her job or resign. .

I think that is a gutsy call for him in this race and one, in my opinion, he should not have made. I think most of the voting electorate will gravitate to the side of supporting the rule of law.

 

Exactly.

To me this is a third rail. Touching this issue may breathe further fire into his hard right supporters, but he already had them. Definite blow to his chances of pulling undecided moderates. You have to really be far evangelical right to think what Kim Davis is doing is appropriate. That doesn't describe the moderate Kentucky voter.

I agree. The republican presidential candidates will also have to tread very lightly on this. They point to Obama left and right claiming he doesn't follow the U.S. Constitution or the law, and if they support her they are ignoring the rule of law that they accuse Obama each week

 

I don't think any presidential candidate wants this question to come up too often.

 

As was mentioned in one of the other threads, Lindsey Graham says she should do her job or resign, or go to war with ISIS. .

 

Fixed that for you..

 

By a large majority.

 

A similar majority that supported segregation and anti-miscegenation laws back in the day. Do you support those ideas because they were backed by a majority as well?

 

Your distaste for liberals is reaching crazy levels (largely akin to SF with conservatives). Do you support banning same sex marriage or not because all of your posts are directed at the hypocrisy of democrats which is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issue is that the SCOTUS struck down any and all laws abridging the right of couples to marry based upon their orientation. As such in the absence of a kaw preventing such marriages they are implicitly allowed.

 

This is an aspect of the argument I struggle to understand. In the absence of something being expressly illegal it is therefore legal and any attempts to prevent the exercising of said rights are violating the rights of those trying to exercise said rights.

 

Kim Davis has the right to express her faith in any way she wishes provided that it does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else. Given the fact that her job requires her to issue marriage licenses and now the ruling of the SCOTUS forbids her from restricting said rights from same sex couples she is in a but of a contradiction. As such she should recognize this and resign citing the fact that her faith does not allow her in good conscience issue same sex marriage licenses.

 

The vast majority of people supporting blatant discrimination does not make it legal. The fact that many of the founding fathers were concerned about the tyranny of the majority makes this situation somewhat more poignant. This amendment, which has been ruled unconstitutional, was clear tyranny of the majority.

 

As a libertarian I find this debate infuriating especially because both sides are being infuriating. People don't have to support this decision, but they cannot deny people their constitutional right to a government sanctioned union. No matter what it is called is irrelevant to me, frankly I am of the mindset that the government has no right in marriage at all (ss or os).

Your religious freedom is important and I will defend it to the death until you try to use that religious belief to restrict the freedom of another.

Can someone help clarify my question from earlier? Did he just say that he supports her 1st amendment rights, or that he is in support of the way she is handling the situation?

A similar majority that supported segregation and anti-miscegenation laws back in the day. Do you support those ideas because they were backed by a majority as well?

 

Your distaste for liberals is reaching crazy levels (largely akin to SF with conservatives). Do you support banning same sex marriage or not because all of your posts are directed at the hypocrisy of democrats which is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issue is that the SCOTUS struck down any and all laws abridging the right of couples to marry based upon their orientation. As such in the absence of a kaw preventing such marriages they are implicitly allowed.

 

This is an aspect of the argument I struggle to understand. In the absence of something being expressly illegal it is therefore legal and any attempts to prevent the exercising of said rights are violating the rights of those trying to exercise said rights.

 

Kim Davis has the right to express her faith in any way she wishes provided that it does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else. Given the fact that her job requires her to issue marriage licenses and now the ruling of the SCOTUS forbids her from restricting said rights from same sex couples she is in a but of a contradiction. As such she should recognize this and resign citing the fact that her faith does not allow her in good conscience issue same sex marriage licenses.

 

The vast majority of people supporting blatant discrimination does not make it legal. The fact that many of the founding fathers were concerned about the tyranny of the majority makes this situation somewhat more poignant. This amendment, which has been ruled unconstitutional, was clear tyranny of the majority.

 

As a libertarian I find this debate infuriating especially because both sides are being infuriating. People don't have to support this decision, but they cannot deny people their constitutional right to a government sanctioned union. No matter what it is called is irrelevant to me, frankly I am of the mindset that the government has no right in marriage at all (ss or os).

Your religious freedom is important and I will defend it to the death until you try to use that religious belief to restrict the freedom of another.

 

I mean this sincerely, what constitutional right are we referring to here ?

 

I agree with you that the government has no business being in the marriage business also....

Well that just guaranteed my vote is going to a third party. He actually had a chance at it before now.

It's a shame the election process dissuades normal people from running for office at this level.

 

I mean this sincerely, what constitutional right are we referring to here ?

 

I agree with you that the government has no business being in the marriage business also....

 

Due Process Clause as outlined by the 5th and 14th amendments and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment which clearly says that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.

 

Given that Kentucky's amendment to its state constitution clearly abridges this right and furthermore according to the 14th amendment "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property," which by preventing people the right to marry whatever consenting adult they choose is a violation of the 14th amendment.

A similar majority that supported segregation and anti-miscegenation laws back in the day. Do you support those ideas because they were backed by a majority as well?

 

Your distaste for liberals is reaching crazy levels (largely akin to SF with conservatives). Do you support banning same sex marriage or not because all of your posts are directed at the hypocrisy of democrats which is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issue is that the SCOTUS struck down any and all laws abridging the right of couples to marry based upon their orientation. As such in the absence of a kaw preventing such marriages they are implicitly allowed.

 

This is an aspect of the argument I struggle to understand. In the absence of something being expressly illegal it is therefore legal and any attempts to prevent the exercising of said rights are violating the rights of those trying to exercise said rights.

 

Kim Davis has the right to express her faith in any way she wishes provided that it does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else. Given the fact that her job requires her to issue marriage licenses and now the ruling of the SCOTUS forbids her from restricting said rights from same sex couples she is in a but of a contradiction. As such she should recognize this and resign citing the fact that her faith does not allow her in good conscience issue same sex marriage licenses.

 

The vast majority of people supporting blatant discrimination does not make it legal. The fact that many of the founding fathers were concerned about the tyranny of the majority makes this situation somewhat more poignant. This amendment, which has been ruled unconstitutional, was clear tyranny of the majority.

 

As a libertarian I find this debate infuriating especially because both sides are being infuriating. People don't have to support this decision, but they cannot deny people their constitutional right to a government sanctioned union. No matter what it is called is irrelevant to me, frankly I am of the mindset that the government has no right in marriage at all (ss or os).

Your religious freedom is important and I will defend it to the death until you try to use that religious belief to restrict the freedom of another.

 

In a nutshell I have maintained all along that if she doesn't want to issue the licenses she should resign, simple. I have never defended her actions based on her religious beliefs. I have also said that when Jack Conway chose not to appeal the court ruling, which was also his job, that he should have resigned. That's the hypocrisy I speak of.

Due Process Clause as outlined by the 5th and 14th amendments and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment which clearly says that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.

Given that Kentucky's amendment to its state constitution clearly abridges this right and furthermore according to the 14th amendment "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property," which by preventing people the right to marry whatever consenting adult they choose is a violation of the 14th amendment.

 

I assume the liberty part is the right to choose freely, assuming the interpretation from the SC used that premise, although we really don't know what their mindset was, correct ?

 

From an equal law perspective, I assume that is because the State of Kentucky requires a legal document to be legally married in the State ?

 

As far as I know, there is no challenge to the State of Kentucky's language in their existing marriage law or the amendment cited, is there ? If that is true, or at least it has not been recalled by the voters, then we have a legal quandry, depending on your perspective of governing law. While the SC may be the "supreme" law of the land, we continue to see States exercise the will of their voters. So I'll be curious what penalty Mr. Bunning hands down today, but I doubt the discussion resolves the issue.

In a nutshell I have maintained all along that if she doesn't want to issue the licenses she should resign, simple. I have never defended her actions based on her religious beliefs. I have also said that when Jack Conway chose not to appeal the court ruling, which was also his job, that he should have resigned. That's the hypocrisy I speak of.

 

It begs the question of jurisdictional authority. Jack is way, way silent on this one and letting Bunning carry the load. At some point I think they have to jump into the muck on this one and take some action