Regarding sanctuary cities, one of the prime examples of a city ignoring federal law is the Kathryn Steinle case. She was shot & killed by an illegal who had been deported several times in the past. It's a sad, long story, but from what I've read, could have been prevented were it not for San Francisco's sanctuary city status.

 

As for Kim Davis, I've said before that I don't defend what she has done, even though she & I have the same views regarding gay marriage. Honestly, as someone who doesn't support gay marriage, I don't want her as the face of my side of the argument, but she is.

 

I just think that her story, and how people view it...it's primarily about gay marriage. The vast majority of those who oppose what she has done also support gay marriage. The vast majority of those who support her are opposed to gay marriage.

 

I'm also not attempting to attack anyone on either side. I'm simply making an observation as to why this woman is so frequently & heatedly discussed.

 

I think this comparison is still uneven. Like the issue with Colorado and Oregon over marijuana, state law and federal law can differ. From my understanding, immigration laws are the purview of the federal government and states are not compelled to enforce federal law. But, when there is a dispute between state and federal law, federal law wins out. So, states might say "we aren't going to waste our time and money doing the feds job for them" but they may not say "immigration is legal here and the federal government can't contradict us." Again, from my understanding, "sanctuary cities" are cities that aren't enforcing federal law.

 

(Someone may correct me if I'm wrong since this is coming from the top of my head over what I've been thinking the last few times it has come up. Might be worth it's own thread.)

 

In the Kim Davis case, the SCOTUS held that the constitution forbids same-sex couples from being excluded from marriage laws. There's no gray area or recourse for states outside of an amendment or appointing new judges who might interpret it differently later on.

Let me add something else to this:

 

Let's say Mrs. Davis is approached by a man and woman in Rowan County who come to her office seeking to obtain a marriage license. And let's say that these two people have the same mailing address, therefore, we can deduce that they are living together without being married. Does she issue them a license, even though such a living arrangement contradicts her faith?

 

If she refused, would she be receiving the same amount of support she's currently received? I say absolutely not.

 

I think everyone that has been defending her right to refuse would say she's nuts in that scenario.

 

FWIW, I'm glad no one has tried that. :lol2: My wife and I lived together for two years prior to getting married. :eek: :lol2:

So, you're saying that even I have a chance( to get to Heaven) ?

 

 

I believe you do. :thumb:

What exactly do you all mean when you refer to "challenging" sanctuary cities?

 

If the federal government is ignoring laws, who's supposed to challenge them?

 

Kim Davis challenged the supreme court by breaking a law and lost.

 

The point people are making with sanctuary cities, imo, is that they themselves are a challenge to the federal government...but the federal government ignores it.

 

Maybe I'm wrong.

 

Cite the law please...she did not break a "law", she objected to an opinion rendered. It's not a law, in fact, the law in the State of KY is the exact opposite. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court decision that renders the KY law void (another discussion for another thread)...this woman didn't break a law.

 

Technically speaking she didn't shirk her responsibility to the office she ran for and was elected to...the target changed.

 

The question still remains: what recourse did she have if in her mind she was 1) elected by the people under a certain set of conditions 2) those conditions were in line with her personal belief system 3) the conditions changed.

 

Yes, I know, she should have resigned...but she doesn't have to, that's the beauty of the whole argument, she doesn't have to and no one in the entire State of Kentucky is willing to take a solid stand and force her to...to include Judge Bunning.

 

What we have is a quandry that has yielded some good discussion for people's belief systems....

So, you're saying that even I have a chance( to get to Heaven) ?

Nah, we had a meeting...you are on the temporarily banned list...but there is always hope for you

Utterly! Illogical is the norm for religion.

 

Someone needs to clear out their mail box lol

So, you're saying that even I have a chance( to get to Heaven) ?

 

If you are a good person? Help others? Yes you do.

Cite the law please...she did not break a "law", she objected to an opinion rendered. It's not a law, in fact, the law in the State of KY is the exact opposite. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court decision that renders the KY law void (another discussion for another thread)...this woman didn't break a law.

 

.

 

I do not believe that is correct.

 

My understanding is that as soon as the SCOTUS said that the portion of the law that forbade same-sex marriage was a Constitutional violation it became law in every state. KY is not required to re-write new law. They just have to "scratch out" the part about same-sex.

 

If I am correct then I'd argue she did break the state law.

 

Technically speaking she didn't shirk her responsibility to the office she ran for and was elected to...the target changed.

 

The question still remains: what recourse did she have if in her mind she was 1) elected by the people under a certain set of conditions 2) those conditions were in line with her personal belief system 3) the conditions changed.

 

..

 

 

I don't see the argument that the "rules changed" as being valid.

 

Let's say that after she was elected the state changed the law and made it age requirement for a driver's license to be 21.

 

Would we give her a pass for still issuing them to 16 year olds?

 

The only valid question is in regards to her right to object based on religion. The courts have answered that one.

I think this comparison is still uneven. Like the issue with Colorado and Oregon over marijuana, state law and federal law can differ. From my understanding, immigration laws are the purview of the federal government and states are not compelled to enforce federal law. But, when there is a dispute between state and federal law, federal law wins out. So, states might say "we aren't going to waste our time and money doing the feds job for them" but they may not say "immigration is legal here and the federal government can't contradict us." Again, from my understanding, "sanctuary cities" are cities that aren't enforcing federal law.

 

So in the case I mentioned earlier...the Kathryn Steinle case...ICE tells San Francisco to detain Mr. Sanchez until immigration authorities could deport him for a sixth time. San Francisco doesn't comply and releases him. A few months later, he shoots and kills Kathryn Steinle.

 

Wouldn't that be an instance where the city should be held responsible for not enforcing federal law?

Did she tell him that he is going to hell? As apostolic pentecostal believe that Catholics will go to hell.

I think everyone that has been defending her right to refuse would say she's nuts in that scenario.

 

I pretty much agree that this would be the reaction from those that currently support her, even though a lot of those people believe that living together prior to marriage is also sinful.

 

But that just reinforces what I've been saying--that this is mostly about gay marriage and not about religious freedom, her not doing her job, etc.

I pretty much agree that this would be the reaction from those that currently support her, even though a lot of those people believe that living together prior to marriage is also sinful.

 

But that just reinforces what I've been saying--that this is mostly about gay marriage and not about religious freedom, her not doing her job, etc.

 

Maybe so. I can't speak for them. I know for me, it's about her refusing to do her job. You can't reap the benefits of a job you refuse to perform.

Cite the law please...she did not break a "law", she objected to an opinion rendered. It's not a law, in fact, the law in the State of KY is the exact opposite. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court decision that renders the KY law void (another discussion for another thread)...this woman didn't break a law.

 

Technically speaking she didn't shirk her responsibility to the office she ran for and was elected to...the target changed.

 

The question still remains: what recourse did she have if in her mind she was 1) elected by the people under a certain set of conditions 2) those conditions were in line with her personal belief system 3) the conditions changed.

 

Yes, I know, she should have resigned...but she doesn't have to, that's the beauty of the whole argument, she doesn't have to and no one in the entire State of Kentucky is willing to take a solid stand and force her to...to include Judge Bunning.

 

What we have is a quandry that has yielded some good discussion for people's belief systems....

 

I'm going to pretend like you first paragraph doesn't exist since that is essentially what you are advocating we can do with Supreme Court decisions.

 

Regarding the rest of this post, are we supposed to believe that the General Assembly will never pass future legislation? Or the courts will never review other laws?

 

You're right, Davis should have resigned. Of course that fat check is pretty enticing too, so what other recourse does she have? First she could have sucked it up and signed her name. Since that was out of the question, she could have let her deputy clerks sign their names. Since that didn't work, she could have abstained from instructing all her clerks to not issue licenses. Since she didn't do that, she could have allowed her clerks issue the amended forms created after her time in the slammer without making her own changes.

Maybe so. I can't speak for them. I know for me, it's about her refusing to do her job. You can't reap the benefits of a job you refuse to perform.

 

She's reaping all kinds of benefits now. :lol2: