Same-Sex Marriage Back In Court In Kentucky

[Webster]

....what part of "do your damned job or get the hell out of the way" do these clerks not understand?

(LGBTQ Nation) ASHLAND, Ky. –— A federal judge is scheduled to hear arguments about a county clerk who is refusing to issue marriage licenses after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis is one of a handful of local officials across the country who have refused to comply with the court’s order. Davis and others say it violates their religious beliefs. The stance has prompted a debate about whether religious liberty extends to those officials, who are charged with carrying out state government functions. The American Civil Liberties Union sued Davis on behalf of two gay couples and two straight couples who were denied licenses.

U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning, son of former Republican U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning, is scheduled to hear arguments at noon Monday.

Quoting one of the comments from the article above...

She is a County Worker, like I am. Lady, do your damn job or quit! If you are unable to do what you were trained to do or refuse to receive training to help you perform your job, then.....goodbye! You should NOT work for the County. Transfer or quit. Done deal!

 

[Jazzy]

Decision delayed in Kentucky clerk's same-sex marriage case:

U.S. District Judge David Bunning suspended the hearing until next Monday at the earliest, because attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union have still not formally notified Davis of the lawsuit against her.

"The ACLU ... aren't really concerned in the marriages of their clients. The plaintiffs can get married in at least 117 if not 118 counties in the state of Kentucky if they want to," said Roger Gannam, Davis' attorney and the senior litigation counsel for Liberty Counsel, a group that defends religious freedom. "This case was about targeting a person of faith to make a point that everyone must comply with the agenda to impose same-sex marriage on all of America."

American Civil Liberties Union attorney Dan Cannon said his clients are not targeting anyone; they simply want to get a marriage license in the county where they live and pay taxes.

April Miller, who lives in Morehead, said when she heard Davis was refusing to issue marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs, she and her partner of 11 years went to the courthouse to "see if it was true." They were denied a license by both Davis and the county judge executive, who said state law only allows him to issue marriage licenses if the clerk is absent. The couple have not tried to get a license from another county.

"It would be degrading to have to go somewhere else to get our license because of this," Miller said.

But Jonathan Christman, an attorney for Davis, said Kentucky law does not require couples to get a marriage license in Rowan County and that other options are available, including going to a neighboring county or asking the judge executive. He argued that the county clerk's religious beliefs essentially rendered her "absent," thus giving the judge executive authority to issue a license.

Meanwhile, forcing Davis to issue the marriage would mean requiring her to sign her name in four different places to "bless" or approve the marriage, Christman said.

"When you take office, you don't suddenly shed your constitutional liberties at the door of the courthouse," Christman said.

Bunning said that isn't necessarily true. He said that he sees a conflict between the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion, and the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection for everyone under the law. He noted that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas pointed this out in his dissent to the court's ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

"Thomas may very well be a prophet," he said.

Bunning questioned attorney Bill Sharp on why the couples wouldn't be satisfied with one of Davis' deputies issuing the marriage license or going to a nearby county where the clerk does not have a religious objection. Sharp replied that it would be "offensive" for couples to accommodate the beliefs of one county clerk.

"She does not get to impose her religious views on others," he said.

Davis, elected last November as a Democrat, took over the office from her mother, Jean Bailey, who served as county clerk for 37 years, according to the Morehead News. Davis worked under her mother as a deputy clerk for 26 years. Her actions, and those of a few other clerks, continue to make same-sex marriage a political issue in Kentucky, which has a high-profile governor's election this fall and is home to Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul.

IMO, issuing licenses has nothing to do with her religion; it is a function of her job and if she doesn't want to do do her job she should quit.

 

[Nebulous]

If she feels that she is going to end up in hell for doing her job, she should quit.
:bigbye:

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Good for her to standing up against a illegal action from our supreme court. Peaceful resistance against these illegal actions from our federal government against the states is what we need more of.

 

[Webster]

Good for her to standing up against a illegal action from our supreme court. Peaceful resistance against these illegal actions from our federal government against the states is what we need more of.

2 centuries of American law would argue that you're wrong, starting with the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison...or do you think we oughta' upend 2 centuries of American jurisprudence so to please certain political views of the courts and the judiciary?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

2 centuries of American law would argue that you're wrong, starting with the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison...or do you think we oughta' upend 2 centuries of American jurisprudence so to please certain political views of the courts and the judiciary?

No it does not and has not. So no we should be following the Constitution and what powers are left to the states CLEARLY written for by our founders so the average educated person to the highly educated could understand it. I guess our modern day judges fall below the term average.

 

[Webster]

No it does not and has not. So no we should be following the Constitution and what powers are left to the states CLEARLY written for by our founders so the average educated person to the highly educated could understand it. I guess our modern day judges fall below the term average.

*scratches head in thought* That logic does not compute...but hey, if you want to overturn 2 centuries of law, have at it...

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

*scratches head in thought* That logic does not compute...but hey, if you want to overturn 2 centuries of law, have at it...

No overturning any two centuries of law just the many unconstitutional rulings recently and over the last few decades. Convention of the states is coming.

 

[Webster]

No overturning any two centuries of law just the many unconstitutional rulings recently and over the last few decades. Convention of the states is coming.

Yeah, sure, a Convention of the States.... *adds deadpan* ...and unicorns must exist also, huh? ....just give it up,m Liberty: your side lost, so you're grasping at any possible way to re-rig the system...in other words, to borrow a quote of mine:

WE WON, YOU LOST...GET OVER IT!

:usa::usa:

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Yeah, sure, a Convention of the States.... *adds deadpan* ...and unicorns must exist also, huh? ....just give it up,m Liberty: your side lost, so you're grasping at any possible way to re-rig the system...in other words, to borrow a quote of mine::usa::usa:

Give up on restoring the law of the land and following the Constitution I do not think so. Like I said the supreme court is not the final say as much as we are led to believe it to be true. All they have done is started a movement to get government out of marriage. Then call it whatever you want and I don't have to pay for it with my tax dollars and we are all happy. But the fight is not done.



Here is the website, it is going to happen.
http://www.conventionofstates.com

 

[Webster]

Like I said, Liberty: WE WON, YOU LOST...GET OVER IT! :usa:

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Like I said, Liberty: WE WON, YOU LOST...GET OVER IT! :usa:

Nope never will abandon following the Constitution, and neither will millions of others. This going to go and on like abortion and obama care. But to once again to be clear this is not about being against gay marriage. This about a government endorsing gay marriage or any marriage and using tax payers money.

 

[Jazzy]

This about a government endorsing gay marriage or any marriage and using tax payers money.

Exactly how is the government using tax payer money?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Exactly how is the government using tax payer money?

I thought we covered this pretty well a few months ago on this topic. There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections provided on the basis of marital status in Federal law. Not all of it costs the tax payers money but a lot of it does. Government has no business in any marriage using any tax payers money. And just like anything with a big government getting bigger it did not stop with heterosexual couples and it won't stop with gay couples. Government getting involved in marriage with the peoples money did not start until the left used it as a tactic for votes and power. And if nothing else this illegal act from the supreme court has just fueled change in government by bypassing the government all together.

Here is just a few of the freebies no one should be getting from government providing it with other peoples money.

Your spouse may be a tax shelter.

Jobless spouse can have an IRA

Couples may "benefit-shop"

A married couple can get greater charitable contribution deductions.

Filing can take less time and expense.

https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-too...-Advantages-of-Getting-Married-/INF17870.html