Ky. County clerk makes a stand against feds

[erowe1]

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

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.

 

[erowe1]

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.



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.



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.

Notice the key word you used, "unenforceable."

The courts have the power to make a law unenforceable by not convicting people accused of breaking those laws. But they can't force a new law to be enforced.

As to your last claim, it can issue such a statement. But it can't, by issuing it, force the hands of the other branches of state and federal government to give any government-based marriage benefits to the same-sex couple they declared married.

 

[Dianne]

Kentucky Governor to Christian clerks: Perform gay ‘marriages’ or lose your jobs

Frankly, this guy looks like he already saved a place in line.

 

[erowe1]

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...

Maybe. But the only issue we know her position on is same-sex marriage. And her position is no different than what Obama's was as recently as 2008. She may well be a true-blue liberal Democrat.

 

[Dianne]

I posted this earlier but must have forgotten to hit the post button because I don't see it.

But, I am amazed San Francisco can defy Federal Law by establishing a sanctuary city to harbor criminal illegal aliens and that is OK. Yet, a lady defies a Federal Law written by Supreme Court Judges (unconstitutional), by refusing to issue a marriage license to a same sex couple and she is arrested with NO BOND !

Go figure why some Federal laws are ok to defy and others aren't.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[euphemia]

The timing of it seems very disingenuous. The ruling only came down five weeks ago and already someone is in jail? That just does not make sense. Most state legislatures aren't in session and can't officially change state law, so basically there is no time to bring the state into compliance of figure out something else. It was dropped right in the laps of county officials all across the nation. Alabama and Oklahoma have threatened to stop issuing marriage licenses, so this is just the first of many cases where people are going to have to make choices about whether to follow state law or federal law.

The next thing is they will demand to have church weddings. They have already shut down a wedding chapel, a couple of bakeries, florists, and photographers. Churches will be next. Many churches have already passed by-laws stating official nonparticipation.

 

[Ender]

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.

ALL people have the right to the pursuit of happiness, whether they fit the current agenda or not. Gays who want to marry, have the right; those who do not want to marry them also have that right.

The simple solution to Davis' problem was to let staff members, who had stated they would issue the license, DO IT. Instead, she carried HER agenda over everyone else and made them follow HER religious beliefs.

There was no reason for this- it is very self-centered and certainly not Christ-like.

Government MUST be taken out of marriage and private family life- this is the only solution. The good thing about the SCOTUS ruling is that it has opened the door towards that.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Dianne]

Actually, I recall seeing it earlier. It was in the "Judge refuses to perform homosexual marriage" thread

Technically, Kim Davis wasn't arrested - she was held in contempt of court. That's worse than being arrested and convicted, because at least when you're convicted you know what the punishment is (fine, imprisonment, Hail Marys). When you're held in contempt of court, the punishment is at the whim of the court and indefinite in duration. Kim Davis had a civil court case brought against her and lost; that's how she's in the predicament she is.

Have there been any civil court cases brought against the governmental authorities in San Francisco regarding their estblishment of a sanctuary city (I'm asking - I really don't know). If so, what decisions have the courts rendered in them?

LOL, thanks for letting me know. I thought I was having a "blonde" moment. I couldn't find my post anywhere

 

[Dianne]

Actually, I recall seeing it earlier. It was in the "Judge refuses to perform homosexual marriage" thread

Technically, Kim Davis wasn't arrested - she was held in contempt of court. That's worse than being arrested and convicted, because at least when you're convicted you know what the punishment is (fine, imprisonment, Hail Marys). When you're held in contempt of court, the punishment is at the whim of the court and indefinite in duration. Kim Davis had a civil court case brought against her and lost; that's how she's in the predicament she is.

Have there been any civil court cases brought against the governmental authorities in San Francisco regarding their estblishment of a sanctuary city (I'm asking - I really don't know). If so, what decisions have the courts rendered in them?

NO, the Feds have let it slide. There are numerous sanctuary cities. I used San Fran as an example.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Dianne]

NO, the Feds have let it slide. There are numerous sanctuary cities. I used San Fran as an example.

Actually, if I were an attorney and not just a lowly paralegal student; I would render all Federal Law moot; as the Sanctuary Cities have set a precedent that State law trumps Federal law.

 

[oyarde]

Actually, I recall seeing it earlier. It was in the "Judge refuses to perform homosexual marriage" thread

Technically, Kim Davis wasn't arrested - she was held in contempt of court. That's worse than being arrested and convicted, because at least when you're convicted you know what the punishment is (fine, imprisonment, Hail Marys). When you're held in contempt of court, the punishment is at the whim of the court and indefinite in duration. Kim Davis had a civil court case brought against her and lost; that's how she's in the predicament she is.

Have there been any civil court cases brought against the governmental authorities in San Francisco regarding their estblishment of a sanctuary city (I'm asking - I really don't know). If so, what decisions have the courts rendered in them?

I believe there are cases against San Francisco brought by family members of those murdered by released illegals with priors , seems like I have read about least one .......

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[oyarde]

If I was County Clerk in my county , (a position my Father held for 8 yrs in the 1960's) , I would have quit issuing any marriage licenses yrs ago.It is immoral to charge fees for such .

 

[Origanalist]

If I was County Clerk in my county , (a position my Father held for 8 yrs in the 1960's) , I would have quit issuing any marriage licenses yrs ago.It is immoral to charge fees for such .

If you were running government, I wouldn't bitch about it so much. Sadly there aren't any oyarde's left in government.

 

[Dianne]

Have any individuals brought actiuon against thegovernment officials in any of those cities? That's what got the ball rolling on KIm Davis. The Feds and the courts didn't go out looking for her; individuals with standing as people who had been harmed by her actions took her to court.

In the case of the santuary cities, you have to find individual(s) with standing as someone who has been harmed - and then those individuals take the case to court (and will probably be backed by any number of anti-immigration groups)

My problem is why the Feds went out searching for this Kentucky Clerk of Court, yet never pursued action against Sanctuary cities. No one brought pleadings upon the Clerk of Court either. Yet, soon she was arrested with NO BOND.

Actually, every religious faction in America may claim they have standing to reverse a law created by the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS has no authority to create laws, they are here to interpret law.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

And declare them unconstitutional where appropriate. That declaration carries the weight of law.

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.