Ky. County clerk makes a stand against feds

[thoughtomator]

Hitler was a duly elected Fuhrer.

Did he have the right to incinerate/gas Jews?


Are our rights subject to majority rule?


Inquiring minds want to know.


.

Seriously? Hitler?

Unless you're talking about actual slave/death camps, any reference to Hitler basically means your argument is completely bankrupt.

Hitler did not run his reign of terror on the strength of "gay marriage". You insult others and diminish yourself with this debate tactic.

 

[Contumacious]

Let's imagine for the sake of argument that the Constitution has some legitimate right to declare itself the law of the land.

And let's further suppose for the sake of argument that 14th Amendment does entail the obligation of court clerks like Kim Davis to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

Has Congress passed any legislation codifying that? If so, can you please cite that legislation?

Again, the final clause of the 14th Amendment is as follows:

Look , I doubt very much that the 14A was lawfully adopted. The Southern states were under martial law at the time.

But Bennett Patterson argued, correctly, that the Ninth Amendment constitutes a general declaration of natural rights.

Can the majority of Kentuckians deprive a segment of their fellow citizens the right to pursue happiness?


.

 

[thoughtomator]

The Democrats didn't support gay marriage in their platform in the 2011 elections.

A technicality at best. Anyone who votes for a Democrat thinking they're not getting the entire progressive-socialist radical social agenda along with it is an idiot.

Kim Davis is also a Democrat, I should note, which should have everybody thinking hard as to whether there may be another level of deception going on as well.

 

[Contumacious]

Seriously? Hitler?

Unless you're talking about actual slave/death camps, any reference to Hitler basically means your argument is completely bankrupt.

Hitler did not run his reign of terror on the strength of "gay marriage". You insult others and diminish yourself with this debate tactic.

Really?

Not according to Santayana's corollary:


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

 

[thoughtomator]

Really?

Not according to Santayana's corollary:


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"

which traditionally implies the corollary that whoever brings it up has lost the debate

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

A technicality at best. Anyone who votes for a Democrat thinking they're not getting the entire progressive-socialist radical social agenda along with it is an idiot.

Kim Davis is also a Democrat, I should note, which should have everybody thinking hard as to whether there may be another level of deception going on as well.

Kentucky Democrats are traditionally much more conservative than the national party. And also, gay marriage was only legal in a handful of states in 2011, no one could have predicted that it would have been legal in all 50 states in 4 years.

 

[erowe1]

Can the majority of Kentuckians deprive a segment of their fellow citizens the right to pursue happiness?

No. But is there any question of that happening in this case? Pursuing happiness does not entail a right to any special privileges, such as might be afforded by a marriage license. It is not a positive right, which is what it would have to be in order to compel the action of Kim Davis.

 

[erowe1]

Really?

Not according to Santayana's corollary:


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Isn't the side that is more like Hitler here the one that supports jailing this innocent woman?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Kentucky Democrats are traditionally much more conservative than the national party. And also, gay marriage was only legal in a handful of states in 2011, no one could have predicted that it would have been legal in all 50 states in 4 years.

I did. In fact, I cited this from the House Floor as a reason to prohibit licensure in September of 2011.

 

[erowe1]

I did. In fact, I cited this from the House Floor as a reason to prohibit licensure in September of 2011.

Is there a record of this we can read somewhere?

 

[Contumacious]

No. But is there any question of that happening in this case? Pursuing happiness does not entail a right to any special privileges, such as might be afforded by a marriage license. It is not a positive right, which is what it would have to be in order to compel the action of Kim Davis.

Why is recognizing that homosexual individuals have a right to pursue happiness conferring a "special privilege"?

 

[thoughtomator]

Kentucky Democrats are traditionally much more conservative than the national party. And also, gay marriage was only legal in a handful of states in 2011, no one could have predicted that it would have been legal in all 50 states in 4 years.

I could have and would have predicted it at the time Obama was first elected, if you'd asked me. I just find it a ridiculously trivial issue given all the other issues that this country has to deal with right now.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Is there a record of this we can read somewhere?

You'd have to go through all the audio from the day's debate. September 10th I think it was. I said 'within 5 years' the Supreme Court would force SSM on NC and the whole country therefore adopt my amendment. I don't really care enough about the underlying subject to spend hours listening to the record looking for that bit. Maybe if I end up running again and someone tries to attack me with my opposition to the original amendment it might become worth it. Beyond that I honestly don't care enough about the underlying subject to devote the time necessary to find that bit of audio. :-/

 

[euphemia]

Why is recognizing that homosexual individuals have a right to pursue happiness conferring a "special privilege"?

Are you a resident in Kentucky?

Are you seeking a same-sex marriage license?

Do you realize the Constitution recognizes (not confers) the rights of the individual?

Do you realize the Constitution recognizes the rights of the states?

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

I did. In fact, I cited this from the House Floor as a reason to prohibit licensure in September of 2011.

I should have said that the average American didn't know what was going to happen. I thought that after the 2013 decision that the SCOTUS would wait until the end of the decade before revisiting the subject.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

What does that have to do with anything? SCOTUS can't write the law, they can only interpret it.

Judges have been making law in the Anglo-American judicial system for over 600 years. They do so in ruling in cases not governed by a statute and , in cases in which they interpret statutes and constitutions. The results in those decisions establish rules of law that will be applied in future cases involving similar facts, unless the decision are overruled in some manner.

Now that SCOTUS has said that that's unconstitutional, it is now incumbent upon the Kentucky legislature to change that law. As of now, they still haven't. And they don't have to.

No, they can be like Alabama, which took 33 years to formally get rid of its anti-miscegenation law. But after Loving, that law was inapplicable and unenforceable, just as Kentucky's ban on same-sex marriage is now. It is a legal nullity.

Supposing Kentucky doesn't change its legal definition of marriage, it is then incumbent upon the US Congress to pass legislation that would provide for the enforcement of the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage. The Supreme Court based its ruling on the 14th Amendment. Notice what the final clause of the 14th Amendment is

You are making the erroneous assumption that Congressional action is the only way to enforce the Court's ruling. It isn't. Eisenhower sent in troops from the 101st Airborne Division and national guard troops to help integrate Central High School in Little Rock. When George Wallace attempted to defy a court order that had ordered black students to be admitted to the University of Alabama, Kennedy federalized the Alabama national guard and was ready to use it (Wallace eventually caved). A court can always hold a state or local official in contempt for refusing to obey its order, as happened with Mrs. Davis. It can issue a declaratory judgment holding that a same-sex marriage (whether performed in Kentucky or in some other State) is valid and must be recognized by Kentucky. In none of these cases is congressional action required.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[euphemia]

And yet they elected a Democrat as Attorney General, twice, knowing that no Democrat would protect the state's legal rights in opposition to his own party's platform.

Kim Davis is a Democrat.

 

[thoughtomator]

Kim Davis is a Democrat

Exactly. Which is why I think this is an orchestrated farce designed to advance the progressive-socialist social agenda.

If she were such a devout Christian she wouldn't be making common cause with abortion-uber-alles fanatics.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

{she's a Democrat }

If she were such a devout Christian she wouldn't be making common cause with abortion-uber-alles fanatics.

Or maybe she doesn't think much either way of political parties per se and just picked one to put after her name so she could get elected. There was once a Congressman from Texas who thought much the same way...