25
   

Gay marriage: TX Attorney General advises clerks they can refuse marriage lic. on religious grounds

 
 
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2015 04:19 am
Stumbled across this Haiku. Enjoy:


Quote:
The SCOTUS Marriage Decision, in Haiku.

BY DANIELA LAPIDOUS

- - - -


Roberts’ dissent:

I support you all
No, really, I do, but this
Isn’t our problem.

Alito’s dissent:

“Happiness is not
the point of marriage, fools. It’s
BABIES,” he whispered.

Thomas’ dissent:

“Liberty” – this word,
I do not think Locke means what
You think it means. Sigh.

Scalia’s dissent:

You’re not a poet,
Kennedy. And by the way,
Democracy’s dead.

Kennedy’s majority decision:

Hark! Love is love, and
love is love is love is love.
It is so ordered.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2015 04:30 am
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

All I can say is, corporations are people with the right to vote with money. If the Koch brothers ordered the conservative portion of the court to vote a reversal it would happen in a second. After all in our society we do as our masters tell us.


You might have a point. Wink
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2015 07:45 am
@RABEL222,
I am only pointing out that for the court to rule that way would be a logical paradox.

Everything I say is a lie. <----- how can this be true?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox


You can ignore any court ruling you don't like. <------- It would make the court impotent and such a ruling could be ignored.
RABEL222
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Jul, 2015 07:23 pm
@parados,
I am not arguing logic, I am pointing out that the Supreme Court two, of whom are owned outright by the Koch brothers,and three others who are ultra conservative do as their party tells them. Is it logical to rule that corporations are people who can vote with as much money as they please in what is supposed to be a democracy?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2015 08:28 am
@RABEL222,
Ruling corporations are people doesn't undermine the power of the court which is what ruling that court rulings could be ignored would do.

Ruling that court rulings could be ignored would mean every ruling you don't like would be essentially overturned. That would mean corporations are not people if they rule that their rulings could be ignored.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Jul, 2015 10:54 am
@parados,
Apples and oranges.
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  5  
Reply Wed 26 Aug, 2015 03:55 pm
BAMMMM, done! Which serves as an example of the other evil doers of bigotry and injustice who want to try and make such bold moves!!! Cool

Of course she can always quit!!!!

Breaking: 6th Circuit Slaps Down Kim Davis' Request For Stay – Must Issue Licenses Monday

Quote:
A Kentucky clerk refusing to issue marriage licenses has exhausted one more avenue, and must issue marriage licenses starting next week.
jcboy
 
  7  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2015 03:39 pm
@jcboy,
This right wing bigoted christian idiot fails to understand that SHE is not issuing the licenses, a government entity is issuing the license. She is an agent for the government and not the other way around. Government should never hire, or retain, anyone that fails to understand the difference. She needs to quit or be fired. Period.

Anti-Gay Kentucky Clerk Defies Court For Third Time, Appeals To SCOTUS

Quote:
A Kentucky county clerk who has refused to issue any marriage licenses since the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in June lost an appeal of her case in the Sixth Circuit yesterday. The federal appeals court held that the clerk, Kim Davis, cannot cite her personal religious views as a reason to stop a government office from performing its duties.

Earlier today, Davis’ office once again defied the court by denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple trying to receive a license for a third time.

Mat Staver, the Liberty Counsel head who is representing Davis and encouraging other officials to commit anti-gay civil disobedience, told the Lexington Herald-Leader that he will now take Davis’ case to the Supreme Court:

"It is disappointing, certainly for our client, because the ramifications of the ruling is that there are no religious freedom rights for individuals if you can say a case is just against the office. The problem with that is, individuals who hold public office don't forfeit their constitutional rights," said Mat Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, the religious advocacy group representing Davis.

Davis will appeal one more rung up the ladder, to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who can intervene in 6th Circuit cases, Staver said.
While Staver claims that the clerk’s “constitutional rights” are being violated when she is required to perform her job duties, the appeals court points out that this is not a case of individual free speech: “[W]here a public employee’s speech is made pursuant to his duties, ‘the relevant speaker [is] the government entity, not the individual.’”


ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2015 03:42 pm
@jcboy,
If she doesn't like her job, she should quit. That's what normal people do.
jcboy
 
  5  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2015 03:45 pm
@ehBeth,
I agree! She is such a mess! I would highly recommend counseling or other help! She is just taking her misery out on others. And probably loving all the attention.

Cool
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2015 08:13 pm
@ehBeth,
I'm sure someone is pulling her strings. They need a plaintiff to bring the case forward. She's probably just a willing participant in someone else's plan (like, Liberty Counsel, the religious advocacy group representing Davis).
0 Replies
 
jcboy
 
  5  
Reply Mon 31 Aug, 2015 05:41 pm
Some Breaking News from Rowan County, Kentucky where the deadline for issuing marriage licences is up and County Clerk Kim Davis has still refused to obey a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, a order from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, and is waiting for a answer from the SCOTUS asking for another stay. No response has been issued yet. She has now been sued twice and in today's lawsuit she is being sued personally and also they are asking for punitive damages and asking for a jury trial. Rowan County was sued today also. She will hopefully be held in contempt of court soon, as well as official misconduct. I just all that praying was just a waste of time Cool

KENTUCKY: Thrice-Rejected Gay Couple Sues Rowan County And Clerk Kim Davis In Federal Court

Quote:
After being turned away for a marriage license for the third time last week, a Kentucky gay couple has sued Rowan County and clerk Kim Davis in federal court. Davis is already being sued by the ACLU. Via Lexington’s CBS affiliate:

The lawsuit was filed Aug. 25 in U.S. District Court by William Smith Jr. and James Yates, but a summons was delivered Monday to Rowan County Judge Executive Walter Blevins, who is named as a defendant with Davis and the county. Other defendants, including Davis, were expected to be served this week, attorneys have told WKYT. The lawsuit says Davis and Rowan County “willfully, intentionally, and with deliberate indifference” to the couple’s rights established a custom or policy to “refuse to issue marriage licenses to individuals eligible to marry in order to deny such individuals, including Smith and Yates, their Constitutional right to marry.” Smith and Yates suffered and “continue to suffer irreparable damage, including but not limited to embarrassment, humiliation, loss of family security and benefits accessible by other married couples,” according to the lawsuit. Smith and Yates are seeking a jury trial, a “reasonable amount” for compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees. Davis has refused to issue marriage licenses, citing her Christian faith and constitutional right to religious liberty, despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on June 26 that legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states. She is being sued by the ACLU because her office stopped issuing marriage licenses.

Yates and Smith have been together for nine years.



http://www.joemygod.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Davissuit-660x330.jpg
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2015 04:38 pm
I'm bit perplexed that Davis was jailed. If this had happened in Australia it would be a performance issue. In the public service it's called "refusing to obey a lawful directive". There'd be counselling and eventually, if no progress was made, she would be dismissed. It wouldn't be in the papers*.

That this has become what it has would make the writers of your constitution gravespin.

*Unless, as has been suggested, she's been put up as a pinup child for the anti-marriage equality movement.

It's a flawed idea, as this tweet from the ironically right wing OzProtectionistParty tweets:

‏@OzProtectionist 3h3 hours ago
.@TheVIIJoker @RancoLaw @Reggiemandalay KIM DAVIS IS NO ROSA PARKS. ROSA PARKS WAS AN APPALLING REVERSE RACIST LEFTURD. DAVIS IS A PATRIOT

RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2015 10:46 pm
@hingehead,
Quote:
DAVIS IS A PATRIOT


She is a religious zelot who should have quit her job if she couldent do it. The constitution takes precedence over the Bible in the U S of A.
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 8 Sep, 2015 11:30 pm
@RABEL222,
In case you missed it, that tweet was ironic.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2015 04:08 pm
@hingehead,
Didn't realise Davis was an 'elected official' - I've never really understood that part of the USA institutional infrastructure.

Anyway, this from an A2Ker on facebook

https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/11988360_1206410836051008_6492847655598069708_n.jpg?oh=3945c5054f8a3d41134ae379bc57dd17&oe=56A8B4C6
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2015 04:16 pm
@hingehead,
Yeh, I'm an american and somehow missed why she can't just be fired. Yes, elected, I got that, but still, can't the governor fire her? I suppose not. Even now I keep learning. That she can't just be fired does make sense. Lots of elected officials get goosed - I just haven't followed all the legalities of all that.

RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2015 09:33 pm
@ossobuco,
She can be removed from office by the legislature. Fat chance in the bible thumping south.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2015 09:45 pm
@RABEL222,
Grrrr. But much as I would enjoy that, I presume that would be partisan voted by the legislature, thus not good.

She curls my hair.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2015 09:45 pm
@ossobuco,
Do you really want to give a governor the ability to fire elected officials? Imagine Scott Walker or Paul LePage with that ability. In my opinion, making it very difficult to get rid of any elected official before their term is up is a good thing.

Contempt of court is the right way forward. Contempt of Court is designed to give judges the leverage to ensure their orders are followed. Using it, with the threat of jail time, is the right way to force Kim Davis to follow the law.



 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 09:08:54