Ky. County clerk makes a stand against feds

[Contumacious]

Pursuing happiness does not entail any special privilege. That's how we know that the right to make someone give same-sex couples marriage licenses is not included in the right to pursue happiness. Thanks for proving my point.

HUH?


WTF?

Walk me through it , how the fuck did you come up with "conclusion"?

.

 

[euphemia]

If the Kentucky marriage laws are void, and the Kentucky legislature has yet to write new marriage laws that comport with the Supreme Court's opinion, then there is no Kentucky marriage law right now. That being the case, it would seem this woman was just complying with the Supreme Court ruling by refusing to issue licenses for a marriage law that doesn't exist.

No, the people of the Commonwealth would have to vote to amend their Consititution, as they did in 2004.

 

[erowe1]

HUH?


WTF?

Walk me through it , how the fuck did you come up with "conclusion"?

.

You were trying to say that somehow Kim Davis, merely by not doing something, prevented same-sex couples from pursuing happiness. Right?

But obviously the right to pursue happiness does not include any positive right to compel anyone else to do anything for you.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[TheCount]

If the Kentucky marriage laws are void, and the Kentucky legislature has yet to write new marriage laws that comport with the Supreme Court's opinion, then there is no Kentucky marriage law right now. That being the case, it would seem this woman was just complying with the Supreme Court ruling by refusing to issue licenses for a marriage law that doesn't exist.

No. KY law states who cannot marry, not who can marry. The law still works with the portions regarding homosexuality removed.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39205


Here's the relevant section to Mrs. Davis. Anyone familiar with gun rights should know what shall issue means. How would you feel if a county clerk decided that they had a religious objection to their state's shall issue weapons permits law?

402.080 Marriage license required
--
Who may issue.
No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by
the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is
eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her
application
in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

No. KY law states who cannot marry, not who can marry. The law still works with the portions regarding homosexuality removed.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39205


Here's the relevant section to Mrs. Davis. Anyone familiar with gun rights should know what shall issue means. How would you feel if a county clerk decided that they had a religious objection to their state's shall issue weapons permits law?

It appears from your citation to only be "shall issue" for females under 18 in the County they reside. For all other cases it appears to be "may issue."

402.080 Marriage license required
--
Who may issue.
No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

The law still works with the portions regarding homosexuality removed.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39205


Here's the relevant section to Mrs. Davis.

402.080 Marriage license required
--
Who may issue.
No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her application in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.​

That's four references to the potentially married couple having one female. So that section of the code has been rendered null and void by the Supreme Court, which says a potentially married couple may have zero or two females and any law saying a married couple must have one female is invalid.

Thanks for proving my point!

 

[Contumacious]

You were trying to say that somehow Kim Davis, merely by not doing something, prevented same-sex couples from pursuing happiness. Right?

But obviously the right to pursue happiness does not include any positive right to compel anyone else to do anything for you.

OH, I see........wrong again dude



Mandamus




Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a superior court,[1] to any government subordinate court, corporation, or public authority—to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty.


.

 

[erowe1]

No. KY law states who cannot marry, not who can marry. The law still works with the portions regarding homosexuality removed.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39205


Here's the relevant section to Mrs. Davis. Anyone familiar with gun rights should know what shall issue means. How would you feel if a county clerk decided that they had a religious objection to their state's shall issue weapons permits law?

Kentucky law defines marriage as one man and one woman. How do you still have any marriage laws at all, which within them use the word "marriage," if you don't have a definition of the word?

As to your last question, I certainly wouldn't support jailing a clerk who did that.

 

[erowe1]

OH, I see........wrong again dude



Mandamus




Mandamus is a judicial remedy in the form of an order from a superior court,[1] to any government subordinate court, corporation, or public authority—to do (or forbear from doing) some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do and which is in the nature of public duty, and in certain cases one of a statutory duty.


.

How does posting the definition of a word prove me wrong? Notice that nowhere does that definition mention a right to pursue happiness, which was what you kept referring to previously.

The right to pursue happiness is not a positive right. You do not have a right to compel anyone else to do anything for you. if you disagree, then it's you who are wrong.

 

[Contumacious]

How does posting the definition of a word prove me wrong? Notice that nowhere does that definition mention a right to pursue happiness, which was what you kept referring to previously.

The right to pursue happiness is not a positive right. You do not have a right to compel anyone else to do anything for you. if you disagree, then it's you who are wrong.

As Putin would say , bullshitsky

The federal government and the state of Kentucky have affirmed that their citizens have a right to get married. Ms Davis, a state bureaucrat , refused. The Courts have a duty to issue a Writ of Mandamus.

In a purely libertarian setting , if you accept my money in order to perform a contractual duty then I should have the right to compel you to act as agreed upon.


.

 

[euphemia]

In a purely libertarian setting , if you accept my money in order to perform a contractual duty then I should have the right to compel you to act as agreed upon.

In a purely libertarian setting, I can decline your money and not do business with you.

 

[Zippyjuan]

You do have a right not to engage in a gay marriage if you object to them. Nobody can force you into one. And we leave the freedom to choose a marriage partner up to your choice. Well, maybe not a horse. Though somebody has tried to do that. https://www.facebook.com/notes/keep...e-cowboy-tried-to-marry-his-horse/90950799203

Liberty is not just for you but also for those you disagree with. Both sides allowed to pursue their desires.

 

[Contumacious]

In a purely libertarian setting, I can decline your money and not do business with you.

Exactly.

But she has accepted the position , the money and then refused to act as agreed upon.

.

 

[Zippyjuan]

She refuses to enforce the law- gets cheered by some. Obama decides not to enforce a law (deportations) and is criticized.

 

[Christian Liberty]

She refuses to enforce the law- gets cheered by some. Obama decides not to enforce a law (deportations) and is criticized.

Well, I agree with Obama on that one because deporting people just for "illegal immigration" isn't justice.

That doesn't change the fact that you're a troll though.

 

[erowe1]

The federal government and the state of Kentucky have affirmed that their citizens have a right to get married.

No they haven't. And if they have, then they're wrong. Furthermore, getting a piece of paper and getting married are two totally different things.

And once again, go back to the words you kept using earlier (over and over and over again), "right to pursue happiness."

Regardless what any make-believe manmade law says, the right to pursue happiness cannot possibly entail the right to force anyone else to do anything for you. It cannot be a positive right. If it is, then it means that the people you are enslaving to provide that thing to you are deprived of their right to pursue happiness.

 

[erowe1]

She refuses to enforce the law- gets cheered by some. Obama decides not to enforce a law (deportations) and is criticized.

I see the opposite happening a lot more. And that's just as hypocritical. After all, she got jailed for it, and Obama hasn't been.

 

[Contumacious]

No they haven't. And if they have, then they're wrong. Furthermore, getting a piece of paper and getting married are two totally different things.

And once again, go back to the words you kept using earlier (over and over and over again), "right to pursue happiness."

Regardless what any make-believe manmade law says, the right to pursue happiness cannot possibly entail the right to force anyone else to do anything for you. It cannot be a positive right. If it is, then it means that the people you are enslaving to provide that thing to you are deprived of their right to pursue happiness.

The right no to be "enslaved" was waived when accepted the government job.


.