Ted Cruz: Once Obama resigns, we can talk about clerk Kim Davis.

[euphemia]

Do you really believe that? Or are you just saying that to show how absurd it is?

If Kim Davis is in jail, then let's just apply that standard all the way around. The President, Hillary, Lois Lerner, the mayor of San Francisco, the governor of Colorado, and all the rest--they go to jail.

The point I'm making is that if a woman who is the Clerk of Courts is in jail because she stopped handing out marriage licenses (supposedly in violation of federal law), then all of the above need to go to jail, too.

Kim Davis has not committed a crime. She turned one couple away and stopped the process for anyone else moving forward. That is an equal standard, and does not discriminate against anyone. She never told the people they couldn't get married. She told them she would not allow a license to be issued with her name on it, as the Clerk of Courts in Rowan County. She is fully authorized to do that. It is an equal standard for all. I can't believe that people here think she is doing something wrong. There were people who gave licenses and performed ceremonies to same sex couples in violation of state and federal law. Why aren't they in jail.

It seems some people who call themselves libertarians are really LINOs, because they are only for liberty when it favors one point of view.

 

[HankRicther12]

The ...... vote.

You just keep going around in circles don't you? Let's look at what you said:

The 14th Amendment applies to gay marriage.

No it doesn't, and if you're going to use that excuse then I want my own Nation with govt funding, food stamps, section 8 housing, Medicaid, Medicare, SS, preferences in college admissions, preferences in hiring, federal funding for any club I may choose to start, and the list goes on, because people are out there getting those things and I am not, and must I remind you AGAIN, single people do not get any marriage benefits so stop this nonsense that it is not being denied to people because it is being denied to millions of people.

I think polygamists should be able to get married. I don't think you can exclude them. Pedophiles should not be able to because there is issue with minors and their ability to give consent. For the same reason you can't marry animals. Animals can't give consent.

Yeah, exactly - you think - so "religious people", who by the way, are not the only one's who oppose GM despite the rhetoric you hear, are not allowed to "terrorize" the minority, but you are.

I knew you would give that lazy answer on pedophiles, why don't you define for me what a pedophile is. Ages of consent vary around the world from 12-22, so who has it right? Who determines this - you again, well of course, because even tho those religious people can't push their standards of right and wrong, you can, and if someone thinks your age it too high or too low, tough, because, well, you're the judge of morality.

Animals can consent, we've all had pets, I'm pretty sure we all knew things they liked and did not. If you're going to say something like that then when did animals consent to being pets in the first place? Being put in kennels, tied up in the yard, hunted, killed, eaten?

What about incest? What about me marrying myself, no seriously, who says I must have a partner to be fulfilled in life? Maybe I am perfectly content with myself in every way and I want these benefits - who are you to judge what love has to mean to me?

Just because a majority wants to extend rights to some groups and not others doesn't mean they should be able to.

Unless of course they do it the way that you agree with.

Basic rights are not subject to vote.

Once again marriage benefits given by the state at the expense of those who are not married is not a basic right, I have a basic right to not be treated differently just because I didn't get some silly license, but again, as long as the gays are happy that's all that matters, who cares about all the millions of single people in America right?

I am certainly not hypocritical on denying rights to people based on sexual orientation. As long as you do not harm others, then your lifestyle should not be discriminated against. Pedophilia or beastiality are doing harm to minors. The problem with incest is the whole having retarded kids things, which means it probably should be illegal.

I am totally okay with polygamous marriage.

Oh boy, just noticed this, what a bunch of nonsense. How does necrophilia harm others? How does beastiality harm others? I can't even believe what you said on incest.

-Do you even know how many genetic diseases there are? Do we forbid those people from marrying?

-What if they are sterile either by birth, or age, or surgery?

-What if it is an all men marriage or all women?

-Finally, if your true reason for being against incest is defects (which is bullshit), you are aware you can reproduce just fine without a marriage license right?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The point I'm making is that if a woman who is the Clerk of Courts is in jail because she stopped handing out marriage licenses (supposedly in violation of federal law), then all of the above need to go to jail, too.

Davis is in jail for contempt of court -- i.e., refusing to obey a judge's order that was affirmed on appeal. None of the other examples you cited involved similar circumstances.

She told them she would not allow a license to be issued with her name on it, as the Clerk of Courts in Rowan County. She is fully authorized to do that.

No, she has no authority to refuse to do her duty. Kentucky law says a marriage license shall be issued by the clerk, and it doesn't give her discretion to refuse to do so if the applicants otherwise qualify. In fact, when she took the oath of office, she swore that she would "faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”

She has an honorable way to avoid breaking her oath of office and maintaining her religious beliefs: resignation.

 

[HankRicther12]

Allowing gays to marry doesn't affect the right of those opposed it it to practice their religious faith -- that is, unless you believe the practice of your religion includes the right to have the government incorporate your personal theology into law and apply it to others who don't share your faith.

While gay marriage may hurt someone's religious sensibilities, there is no right to not be offended.

What does that have to do with anything? Who was talking about about being "offended", I don't recall anyone listing that as a basis for anything, certainly not me.

Davis is in jail for contempt of court -- i.e., refusing to obey a judge's order that was affirmed on appeal. None of the other examples you cited involved similar circumstances.

No, she has no authority to refuse to do her duty. Kentucky law says a marriage license shall be issued by the clerk, and it doesn't give her discretion to refuse to do so if the applicants otherwise qualify. In fact, when she took the oath of office, she swore that she would "faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”

She has an honorable way to avoid breaking her oath of office and maintaining her religious beliefs: resignation.

Everyone always has a right to refuse an unlawful order. Did people who refused the draft have that right based on being a con objector? How about people who refused to enforce slave laws? We are all supposed to just follow the law no matter what? She did not take an oath to issue GM licenses, when she took the job that was not part of it, suddenly 5 judges change a definition that has existed for countless years and she is in the wrong?

BTW, I might be wrong, but I do believe Kentucky law does not recognize GM.

Resignation - so basically in a country founded by Christians, a country which has in it's very first amendment the right to religious belief which cannot be infringed by the govt, Christians just need not apply anymore for govt jobs because suddenly after over 200 centuries 5 clowns turn the country on it's head?

 

[Krugminator2]

You just keep going around in circles don't you? Let's look at what you said:

No. My answer was quite good and logical. I am a libertarian. You didn't refute anything I said. I am not going to get you up to speed on what a libertarian is.

BTW, animals cannot consent. They are property. They have no rights. You can't enter into a contact with a dog. It would not know what it is signing. It is a dog. Dogs do not have the ability to reason.

 

[Dianne]

If Obama were to resign, and not complete his full term... couldn't he run again for another full four year term? I read years ago, if a President were to be impeached that he or she could run again since not completing second term.

 

[juleswin]

No one is stopping you from drawing one up, either. Go for it.

Until one of the couples tries to bring that marriage contract not issued by the govt to a hospital where the other is in some sort of coma and tried to make decisions for the other half or inquire about his/her health.

That's when they will realize that not all marriage contracts are not the same.

 

[erowe1]

You can't exclude a group based on sexual orientation.

There never has been an exclusion of anyone based on sexual orientation. There has only been exclusion of unmarried people on the basis of not being married. And there still is.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

Supreme court overrules them. Can they refuse marriage licenses to black couples if they don't want to?

lower courts havent been in compliance with SCOTUS over the income tax for probably 100 years... so id like to see that corrected before i worry about new shit

 

[Chester Copperpot]

If Obama were to resign, and not complete his full term... couldn't he run again for another full four year term? I read years ago, if a President were to be impeached that he or she could run again since not completing second term.

presidents are allowed to serve for 10 years

 

[euphemia]

In fact, when she took the oath of office, she swore that she would "faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”

Then the President should be in jail. Most of Congress should be in jail. How is it fair to say one woman who stopped signing off on marriage licenses should be in jail when the president himself has blatantly said he will not enforce certain laws?

This is how the federal government works. They suppress freedom in the tiniest hamlet and ignore a widespread defiance of the law right in the Oval Office.

 

[HankRicther12]

No. My answer was quite good and logical. I am a libertarian. You didn't refute anything I said. I am not going to get you up to speed on what a libertarian is.

BTW, animals cannot consent. They are property. They have no rights. You can't enter into a contact with a dog. It would not know what it is signing. It is a dog. Dogs do not have the ability to reason.

Actually, they are not logical. See logic is me pointing out your hypocrisy such as the fact that you are attacking others for trying to force their moral standards, yet you turn around and do that exact thing.

You make a statement that people have a right to marriage benefits when they do not have a right to them anymore than they have a right to "free healthcare".

You say you can't deny benefits to one group yet I and others have given you countless examples of that very thing which you keep ignoring.

Animals are property? According to who? Oh, wait, I forgot who I'm talking to here, I must keep it in mind you are the ultimate judge on all moral matters in the world and your word is law. So I guess all those animal cruelty laws are wrong? People do leave possessions to pets in their wills, you do know that happens right? Which animals signed the contract to be hunted or eaten? I'd say a marriage ceremony would be quite preferable to those.

Nice too how you dodge the question of age of consent laws and incest.

You keep on saying things that completely contradict each other. You are not a libertarian and you obviously don't even know what it means, you are what many have started calling a "bandwagon libertarian".

Until one of the couples tries to bring that marriage contract not issued by the govt to a hospital where the other is in some sort of coma and tried to make decisions for the other half or inquire about his/her health.

That's when they will realize that not all marriage contracts are not the same.

More lies from the pro-gay crowd, how people can't see what a false statement that is I'll never know. You can give anyone you like power of attorney, not everyone who goes into the hospital is married. Not to mention, where do you get the idea that a person always wants their spouse to be making their medical decisions? Maybe they are on the verge of divorce, maybe the healthy one is cheating and looking to run off with the new lover, some life insurance would be a sweet bonus.

Then the President should be in jail. Most of Congress should be in jail. How is it fair to say one woman who stopped signing off on marriage licenses should be in jail when the president himself has blatantly said he will not enforce certain laws?

This is how the federal government works. They suppress freedom in the tiniest hamlet and ignore a widespread defiance of the law right in the Oval Office.

You know, I wish all these people would just drop the charade and be honest, they are just biased in favor of homosexuals and against Christians, they try to mask it as some freedom issue and all that, but nowhere else do you see them saying we need to give more people govt benefits or expand govt power, despite all their claims of being "libertarian" they are no different than anyone else, govt's fine when it's agreeing with them.

 

[cindy25]

If Obama were to resign, and not complete his full term... couldn't he run again for another full four year term? I read years ago, if a President were to be impeached that he or she could run again since not completing second term.

no-anything over two years counts as a full term. under two years does not count at all.

 

[euphemia]

SCOTUS ruled just over a month ago and now we have a woman in jail.

Kim Davis cannot be removed from office by the federal government. Even though she is in jail, she is still Clerk of Courts. Her order to suspend marriage licenses is still in effect. If I was engaged and due to be married right away, I would go to the next county, be licensed and married in a civil ceremony, then return home for the party wedding. I would not be licensed in Rowan County right now.

This is the problem with unelected people legislating federal law. If homosexuals wanted to do something about Davis, they could move to Rowan County, register to vote, and petition for a special election to recall her. It wouldn't take much to make that happen. She won the general election by less than 500 votes. They could register that many people at Morehead State University. They might be able to mobilize the evangelicals, but I doubt there are enough to overcome a serious political action. It would be much easier and fully legal to do that, but then there would be no media coverage. We have to have the drama.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Until one of the couples tries to bring that marriage contract not issued by the govt to a hospital where the other is in some sort of coma and tried to make decisions for the other half or inquire about his/her health.

You don't have to have a marriage contract to do that. A durable power of attorney covers that, I think, anyway.

 

[Krugminator2]

such as the fact that you are attacking others for trying to force their moral standards, yet you turn around and do that exact thing.

Nice too how you dodge the question of age of consent laws and incest, it's OK, I know you you're trapped and you know it.

You keep on saying things that completely contradict each other. You are not a libertarian and you obviously don't even know what it means, you are what many have started calling a "bandwagon libertarian".

I never once attacked anyone personally. You, however, do seem perturbed about something.

Obviously you are better read and have a better understanding of libertarianism than I do. I read your outstanding questions and realized I fell right into a trap that I couldn't get out of. I avoided your highly astute questions hoping you wouldn't notice. But you did notice and the questions were just too tough. You win.

 

[juleswin]

You don't have to have a marriage contract to do that. A durable power of attorney covers that, I think, anyway.

I be damned, you and Hankricther12 are actually right. I actually looked into it and power of attorney and marriage license are about the same when it comes to providing bedside access and decision making for partners in the hospital. Yea, marriage comes with way more benefits, less hassle to get etc etc. But for the purpose I mentioned in my post, a medical power of attorney can stand in place of a marriage license.

Now I know and won't be bringing up this example in the future

 

[euphemia]

And people who think it is too expensive to make a legal contract should realize the days of $5 marriage licenses went away with the dial phone. Marriage licenses are taxes, and they aren't cheap.

Government is everywhere.

 

[HankRicther12]

I never once attacked anyone personally. You, however, do seem perturbed about something.

Obviously you are better read and have a better understanding of libertarianism than I do. I read your outstanding questions and realized I fell right into a trap that I couldn't get out of. I avoided your highly astute questions hoping you wouldn't notice. But you did notice and the questions were just too tough. You win.

I didn't say you attacked anyone personally, you actually did something much worse, you attacked "religious people" which comprise billions of human beings you don't even know. I am perturbed, absolutely, I am in America, the supposed "Land of the Free" and a woman has just been thrown in jail for refusing to issue a govt license that violates her religious beliefs.

How anyone can claim to be a libertarian and not be more than perturbed by that is beyond me, how anyone can claim to be libertarian and not be perturbed that the govt has just been granted vast new powers and that now there will be even more people hooked on the govt goodies is beyond me.

Sadly, too many are once again dwelling on the gay v Christian aspect and not seeing the bigger picture. Even if I were to humor the SCOTUS and say they made the right call, still, are you really saying jail is what you do to political dissenters?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

lower courts havent been in compliance with SCOTUS over the income tax for probably 100 years

Rubbish.