Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[TheProgressivePatriot]

First of all, this is not a “left-right issue”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Nice! I asked for a sign that you have a brain, and I get confirmation that do not have one. I'm sure that those baboons are smarter than you. We're done here. You waited enough of my time.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hey all of you looney, anti gay crusaders......you have a friend in Huckabee!! Send him a check. If he gets in (fat chance) maybe he'll make one of you his Minister of Truth, or head of the Bureau of Moral Enforcement.

Mike Huckabee Thinks Gay Marriage Is Still Illegal. Here's What's Wrong With That. Submitted by Brian Tashman on Tuesday, 9/8/2015 2:30 pm

The way Mike Huckabee sees it, the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling was “illegal, unconstitutional and unlawful” and thus Kentucky clerk Kim Davis is actually the only clerk in Kentucky, and possibly America, who is following the law by denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. As Huckabee said on MSNBC last week, the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell has not yet come into effect because “you have to have enabling legislation” and neither Congress nor the Kentucky legislature have passed a law legalizing same-sex marriage. - See more at: Mike Huckabee Thinks Gay Marriage Is Still Illegal. Here's What's Wrong With That.

 

[Asclepias]

Davis looks like she really needs a gay hairdresser!

White Power!!!!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Here is another darling of the religious right that all of you bigots can relate to:

Christian Reconstrucionist Michael Peroutka Joins Kim Davis Fan Club Submitted by Peter Montgomery on Tuesday, 9/8/2015 11:42 am

Michael Peroutka, a neo-confederate whose Institute on the Constitution promotes a far-right Christian Reconstructionist view of religion and government, has joined the chorus of right-wing voices that have gathered to defend Kim Davis, the county clerk jailed for contempt of court after refusing to obey a court order that she issue marriage licenses to qualified same-sex couples. Peroutka appeared at a rally with other Davis supporters over the weekend, declaring, “Kim Davis has given all believers a lesson in faithfulness.” - See more at: Christian Reconstrucionist Michael Peroutka Joins Kim Davis Fan Club

 

[koshergrl]

Davis looks like she really needs a gay hairdresser!

White Power!!!!

Are you going to put a fatwah on Christian court clerks now?

 

[Asclepias]

Davis looks like she really needs a gay hairdresser!

White Power!!!!

Are you going to put a fatwah on Christian court clerks now?

A fat what?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I provided links numerous times in many threads to the legal documents, including the hearing transcript, in the case against Kim Davis.

You have a link to the hearing transcripts?

Could I humbly request that you post it again, I'd love to read it.

Thank you in advance.

WW

>>>>

 

[Uncensored2008]

First of all, this is not a “left-right issue” -not any longer. A good many prominent Republicans, business leaders and even clergy got behind the plaintiffs because they realized that discrimination is no longer sustainable and bad for business. While fewer Republicans supported same sex marriage, there numbers are growing , especially among younger people.

Let's try this again, I had to just laugh at you the first time.

Your reference to wanting to marry Christie Brinkley is ridiculous on the face of it. We are talking about the right to choose who you marry from among those who will choose to marry you. Heterosexuals could do that, before Obergefell, gays did not have that same right. This has to be just more of your manipulation and game playing because I don’t

What is ridiculous is the claim that people have the "right" marry whomever they please. As with most of what the left claims, this is absurdity couched in fantasy.

You go on to say “The first ingredient is two willing adults - again given the propensity of leftists to insanity, this is subject to change at the whim of the SCOTUS” What the **** does that mean.?? That the next thing will be to do away with mutual consent . Who is insane??

I find that the left has no anchor to rationality. Ayn Rand referred to you as the "fakers of reality," who not liking the constraints of reality, simply pretend that what you desire is in fact real, despite the fact that it is not. The fable of the Emperor's New Clothes was penned to describe exactly what it is the left does.

Then you blather on about sexual attraction which you seem to think is unimportant and that, old sport, may actually be the crux of your problem. Perhaps there is not enough love in your life? Is that why you are so angry and want to deprive others of what you can take for granted…or at least could if you were able to find love yourself. Then you allude to marriage being about procreation which is just more horseshit.

I'm sure I lost you once I spoke of society and culture predating Marx, and yet reality still is...

The institution of marriage is not a Jewish or Christian one. Oddly it developed in virtually every successful society throughout history. Some people have wondered why that is? We can call these people "anthropologists."

Before we go on, we have to make an assumption, that is that evolution is real. It's not a huge leap, the evidence is overwhelming, irrefutable actually. So evolution is real, and there is an innate drive in humans to survive. Because humans are social animals, part of the survival strategy of the species is the formation of societies.

Now a couple of things, a pregnant female is vulnerable, as is one nursing or caring for young children. Granted, you are a leftist and think history started with MTV, but that which makes man a successful species is actually a bit older. Cultures developed to protect pregnant females and their offspring. This is because the evolutionary impetus of the species is to survive.

I know, this is hard for you to grasp, Jon Stewart never said anything about replication of genetic codes and the propagation of ones own DNA. Marriage developed in the species as a means to entice males to remain with the females to protect the vulnerable female and offspring. This is what anthropologists call a "survival strategy." Enticing two males to cohabit confers no advantage to the species, quite the opposite. Homosexuality in fact is most likely a genetic kill switch, an evolutionary mechanism to remove unwanted DNA from the species.

The biggest bunch of bovine excrement in this is your contention that “the left” wants to destroy American culture. Are you ******* serious? Collectivism and authoritarian rule.? Right, authoritarian rule was those laws that banned gay marriage you fool!

Yes marriage is a stabilizing force-you actually got something right. That is why it must be open to all who wish to engage in it. If you broaden the base of an institution and make it more inclusive, you strengthen it.

I just can't believe that you are stupid enough to believe your own bovine excrement. This has got to be some sick game. Please give me a sign that you have a brain.

Lenin wrote that if given control of one generation of children, he could create a society completely loyal to the state. Lenin failed, but the ideal of the left to destroy the nuclear family remains. The dream of a collectivist society under authoritarian rule is retarded (I'll say!) by the presence of the family. People are more loyal to family (remember, evolution is real - reality is.) than they are to the rulers of the state, You of the left have waged war on the family and on marriage since the days of Marx.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Report: Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis Terrorized Staff

A bigot and a tyrant: Anti-gay Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis terrorized her staff and made life miserable for her employees.

Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, terrorized her staff, who wanted to follow the law and issue same-sex marriage licenses, but were too afraid of Davis to do so.

Yesterday a judge found Davis in contempt of court and had her placed in jail. Today, with their boss safely in jail and powerless, the county’s deputy clerks began issuing same-sex marriage licenses.

In an interview with the Kentucky Trial Court Review, Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins explains that the deputy clerks in Kim Davis’ office wanted to obey the law and issue same-sex marriage licenses, but they were too afraid of their boss to come forward and say so.

The following is an excerpt from a report on the interview with Watkins posted to the Kentucky Trial Court Review Facebook page:

See more at: Report: Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis Terrorized Staff

I really feel sorry for the staff in Davis' office when she returns to work.

Oh look, a leftist is slandering and libeling an enemy of the party, how unique.

Must be day ending in "y" for the demagogues to spew their filth like this...

 

[Asclepias]

First of all, this is not a “left-right issue” -not any longer. A good many prominent Republicans, business leaders and even clergy got behind the plaintiffs because they realized that discrimination is no longer sustainable and bad for business. While fewer Republicans supported same sex marriage, there numbers are growing , especially among younger people.

Let's try this again, I had to just laugh at you the first time.

Your reference to wanting to marry Christie Brinkley is ridiculous on the face of it. We are talking about the right to choose who you marry from among those who will choose to marry you. Heterosexuals could do that, before Obergefell, gays did not have that same right. This has to be just more of your manipulation and game playing because I don’t

What is ridiculous is the claim that people have the "right" marry whomever they please. As with most of what the left claims, this is absurdity couched in fantasy.

You go on to say “The first ingredient is two willing adults - again given the propensity of leftists to insanity, this is subject to change at the whim of the SCOTUS” What the **** does that mean.?? That the next thing will be to do away with mutual consent . Who is insane??

I find that the left has no anchor to rationality. Ayn Rand referred to you as the "fakers of reality," who not liking the constraints of reality, simply pretend that what you desire is in fact real, despite the fact that it is not. The fable of the Emperor's New Clothes was penned to describe exactly what it is the left does.

Then you blather on about sexual attraction which you seem to think is unimportant and that, old sport, may actually be the crux of your problem. Perhaps there is not enough love in your life? Is that why you are so angry and want to deprive others of what you can take for granted…or at least could if you were able to find love yourself. Then you allude to marriage being about procreation which is just more horseshit.

I'm sure I lost you once I spoke of society and culture predating Marx, and yet reality still is...

The institution of marriage is not a Jewish or Christian one. Oddly it developed in virtually every successful society throughout history. Some people have wondered why that is? We can call these people "anthropologists."

Before we go on, we have to make an assumption, that is that evolution is real. It's not a huge leap, the evidence is overwhelming, irrefutable actually. So evolution is real, and there is an innate drive in humans to survive. Because humans are social animals, part of the survival strategy of the species is the formation of societies.

Now a couple of things, a pregnant female is vulnerable, as is one nursing or caring for young children. Granted, you are a leftist and think history started with MTV, but that which makes man a successful species is actually a bit older. Cultures developed to protect pregnant females and their offspring. This is because the evolutionary impetus of the species is to survive. I know, this is hard for you to grasp, Jon Stewart never said anything about replication of genetic codes and the propagation of ones own DNA. Marriage developed in the species as a means to entice males to remain with the females to protect the vulnerable female and offspring. This is what anthropologists call a "survival strategy." Enticing two males to cohabit confers no advantage to the species, quite the opposite. Homosexuality in fact is most likely a genetic kill switch, an evolutionary mechanism to remove unwanted DNC from the species.

The biggest bunch of bovine excrement in this is your contention that “the left” wants to destroy American culture. Are you ******* serious? Collectivism and authoritarian rule.? Right, authoritarian rule was those laws that banned gay marriage you fool!

Yes marriage is a stabilizing force-you actually got something right. That is why it must be open to all who wish to engage in it. If you broaden the base of an institution and make it more inclusive, you strengthen it.

I just can't believe that you are stupid enough to believe your own bovine excrement. This has got to be some sick game. Please give me a sign that you have a brain.

Lenin wrote that if given control of one generation of children, he could create a society completely loyal to the state. Lenin failed, but the ideal of the left to destroy the nuclear family remains. The dream of a collectivist society under authoritarian rule is retarded (I'll say!) by the presence of the family. People are more loyal to family (remember, evolution is real - reality is.) than they are to the rulers of the state, You of the left have waged war on the family and on marriage since the days of Marx.

All this from the guy that thinks Vancouver is in europe. Then he wonders why everyone laughs at him.

 

[Asclepias]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And once again the right is demonstrated to be wrong.

Davis complied with the court order, resulting in her release, where she was being held in contempt for failing to comply with that court order, having nothing to do whatsoever with her 'religious liberty.'

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nice! I asked for a sign that you have a brain, and I get confirmation that do not have one. I'm sure that those baboons are smarter than you. We're done here. You waited enough of my time.

Those are orangutans. No wonder you have trouble with gender roles, basic identification appears to baffle you.

 

[Debra K]

Your response fails to address the content of my post.

There was no content in your post. You again cut and pasted nonsense from one of the hate sites as if it were pertinent. Types of contempt are no meaningful to the strategy of political prisoners and civil disobedience.

You're a dumb-ass. What "hate site" did I allegedly copy and paste? Kim Davis was not a political prisoner. She was jailed for civil contempt. However, I don't expect you to understand the difference. Your limited intellectual capacity is a handicap to your understanding rather simple things.

Despite the fact that you never reciprocate, I will address the content of your one-liner.

I provided links numerous times in many threads to the legal documents, including the hearing transcript, in the case against Kim Davis. The facts are the facts ... and the law is the law ... and I retain what I have learned about those things in my brain. You, on the other hand, just pull shit out of your ass.

Davis initially outmaneuvered you of the anti-culture. Being locked up as a political prisoner made her a martyr. I believe the judge outwitted her on this round. Davis would have served her cause better by refusing to sign for her deputies to issue licenses.

She maneuvered herself into a jail cell. She is a useful idiot for the con-artists who latched onto her for the purpose of relieving rubes (like you) of their money and placing it in their own pockets. Send them money, dumb-ass; they want your money.

 

[koshergrl]

Your response fails to address the content of my post.

There was no content in your post. You again cut and pasted nonsense from one of the hate sites as if it were pertinent. Types of contempt are no meaningful to the strategy of political prisoners and civil disobedience.

You're a dumb-ass. What "hate site" did I allegedly copy and paste? Kim Davis was not a political prisoner. She was jailed for civil contempt. However, I don't expect you to understand the difference. Your limited intellectual capacity is a handicap to your understanding rather simple things.

Despite the fact that you never reciprocate, I will address the content of your one-liner.

I provided links numerous times in many threads to the legal documents, including the hearing transcript, in the case against Kim Davis. The facts are the facts ... and the law is the law ... and I retain what I have learned about those things in my brain. You, on the other hand, just pull shit out of your ass.

Davis initially outmaneuvered you of the anti-culture. Being locked up as a political prisoner made her a martyr. I believe the judge outwitted her on this round. Davis would have served her cause better by refusing to sign for her deputies to issue licenses.

She maneuvered herself into a jail cell. She is a useful idiot for the con-artists who latched onto her for the purpose of relieving rubes (like you) of their money and placing it in their own pockets. Send them money, dumb-ass; they want your money.

Shouldn't Judge Parker have been jailed for civil contempt as well?

Gay Judge Refuses to Perform Marriages

 

[Asclepias]

Your response fails to address the content of my post.

There was no content in your post. You again cut and pasted nonsense from one of the hate sites as if it were pertinent. Types of contempt are no meaningful to the strategy of political prisoners and civil disobedience.

You're a dumb-ass. What "hate site" did I allegedly copy and paste? Kim Davis was not a political prisoner. She was jailed for civil contempt. However, I don't expect you to understand the difference. Your limited intellectual capacity is a handicap to your understanding rather simple things.

Despite the fact that you never reciprocate, I will address the content of your one-liner.

I provided links numerous times in many threads to the legal documents, including the hearing transcript, in the case against Kim Davis. The facts are the facts ... and the law is the law ... and I retain what I have learned about those things in my brain. You, on the other hand, just pull shit out of your ass.

Davis initially outmaneuvered you of the anti-culture. Being locked up as a political prisoner made her a martyr. I believe the judge outwitted her on this round. Davis would have served her cause better by refusing to sign for her deputies to issue licenses.

She maneuvered herself into a jail cell. She is a useful idiot for the con-artists who latched onto her for the purpose of relieving rubes (like you) of their money and placing it in their own pockets. Send them money, dumb-ass; they want your money.

Shouldn't Judge Parker have been jailed for civil contempt as well?

Gay Judge Refuses to Perform Marriages

False equivalence. Nowhere did she direct other judges to refuse to perform any marriages.

False equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors."

 

[Uncensored2008]

And once again the right is demonstrated to be wrong.

Davis complied with the court order, resulting in her release, where she was being held in contempt for failing to comply with that court order, having nothing to do whatsoever with her 'religious liberty.'

Actually Saul, the court order was modified to compromise with Davis to get her out. Holding a political prisoner did more damage to Judge Bunning than to Davis, so he scrambled to find a compromise to get her out of his jail.

 

[dcraelin]

it is yet another reason why future generations will not look favorably on the decision.
....

You're talking out of your ass.

The only people who will look unfavorably upon this decision in the future are the occasional disparate homophobes and butthurt social conservatives who cry themselves to sleep every night and see monsters under their beds - some of the same ones who think an 1802 SCOTUS decision granting Judicial Review was ruled in error.

The world will move on and butthurts will learn to live with the awfullness of recognizing gay people as equal persons in the eyes of the law.

well Im talking about the play on the emotions that propelled the federal judiciary to ignore the Constitution and use verbal sophistry to pass what they had a warm and fuzzy feeling about.

The Valentine decision will forever be emblematic of this.

No, you're talking about a ridiculous lie you've contrived and are trying to propagate.

The Obergefell Court followed the Constitution, it followed settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence, and it followed the rule of law.

The states may not seek to disadvantage through force of law a class of persons predicated solely on who they are, including gay Americans.

“The fourteenth amendment...prohibits any state legislation which has the effect of denying to any...class [of persons], or to any individual, the equal protection of the laws.”

Civil Rights Cases (1883)

gee, 4 of 9 justices disagreed. doesn't sound so cut and dried to me,.....

and my post was about how this will be remembered in the future...and the Valentine days ruling will be a lasting example of the emotional bases for these rulings, rather than a sober and logical look at the law.

I'm willing to be that your another one who has not bothered to read the opinion but is , nevertheless willing to dismiss it as "emotional" and as not following the law. Here are selected excerpts for you convenience. While you read, count the number of earlier cases that were cited to support the decision....just in the portions that I provided and then tell us again how this is not based on solid case law :

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*



Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriagebetween two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.



(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Pg.2



(2) Four principles and traditions demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples. The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy. Pg. 3



A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals. The intimate association protected by this right was central to Griswold v. Connecticut, which held the Constitution protects the right of married couples to use contraception, pg.3


A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguardschildren and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. See, e.g., Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issuethus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples. See Windsor, supra, at ___.Pg.3


Finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order. See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order. There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle,yet same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that theStates have linked to marriage and are consigned to an instabilitymany opposite-sex couples would find intolerable. Pg.4



(4) The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. Same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. Baker v. Nelson is overruled. The State laws challenged by the petitioners in these cases are held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite-sex couples. Pp. 22–23. Pg.5




There may be an initial inclination to await further legislation, litigation, and debate, but referenda, legislative debates, and grassroots campaigns; studies and other writings; and extensive litigation in state and federal courts have led to an enhanced understanding of the issue. While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. Pg 5

I almost never read majority opinions,....the dissents contain the most true wisdom in our joke of a federal court system.

I did see one case mentioned Baker v. Nelson

which they said they overruled ...........so much for a solid basis in precedent.

 

[dcraelin]

well thats the claim anyway, said 5 of the 9. Two of which, as Silhouette showed, should have recused themselves. But most with common sense know that the 14th addressed former slaves. Women had to go out and get the right to vote via a Constitutional amendment...the gay community should've done the same.

Justice Thomas outlines the hypocrisy of the 5 justices in Arizona legislature vs. Arizona independent commission, a case which confirms the fact that we are a democracy. It is worth a read.

Kegan and Ginsberg should have recused themselves? Why? because they were outspoken and demonstrable about their position on the issue? By that criteria, Thomas and Scalia should have also recused themselves. They have spewed a lot of anti gay crap. However, the fact is that no one had a personal interest in the outcome of the case, and no one was personally acquainted with any of the litigants. Therefore, it's a bullshit argument.

no yours is the bull shit argument...........the legality, constitutionality of gay marriage was in question...those justices displayed bad form in presiding over marriages. ....they should have done the honorable thing and stayed away until a decision was had.

Interesting how you just gloss over the point that I made about Thomas and Scalia and just repeat the same crap over again.

You might consider the fact that there was a 25 day window of opportunity to file a motion to rehear the case without Kagan and Ginsberg, However, the AGs of the 4 states involved would not do so because they knew that it was a loosing proposition. So please give it a rest!

they perhaps knew the deck was rigged ,,yes.................and your "point" on Thomas and Scalia on guns was answered I believe

You really want to talk about Thomas and Scalia??

Kagan and Ginsburg were no more biased that Scalia and Thomas Here is Thomas on gay rights with Scalia also dissenting in both

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Thomas issued a one-page dissent where he called the Texas anti-gay sodomy statute "uncommonly silly." He then said that if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would vote to repeal the law, as it was not a worthwhile use of "law enforcement resources" to police private sexual behavior. Since he was not a member of the state legislature, but instead a federal judge, and the Due Process Clause did not (in his view) touch on the subject, he could not vote to strike it down. Accordingly, Thomas saw the issue as a matter for the states to decide for themselves.[162]

He could not be bothered to join the majority because he though that it was sill. It's apparent that he also thought that gay rights don't matter much or that due process applies to them

In Romer v. Evans (1996), Thomas joined Scalia's dissenting opinion arguing that Amendment 2 to the Colorado State Constitution did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Colorado amendment forbade any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships."[163] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas

As for Scalia:

Here Are the 7 Worst Things Antonin Scalia Has Said or Written About Homosexuality http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/03/scalia-worst-things-said-written-about-homosexuality-court

Tell us again how Kegan and Ginsberg are more biased than these guys. There is more:

The section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding. Judicial disqualification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

None of this applies to Kagan and Ginsburg. None of it. However, Thomas did in fact have a personal stake in a number of cases. :

Virginia "Ginni" Thomas is no ordinary Supreme Court spouse. Unlike Maureen Scalia, mother of nine, or the late Martin Ginsburg, mild-mannered tax law professor who was good in the kitchen, Thomas came from the world of bare-knuckled partisan politics. Over the years, she has enmeshed herself ever more deeply in the world of political advocacy—all the while creating a heap of conflict of interest concerns surrounding her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/ginni-thomas-groundswell-conflict-interest]

Tell us how many times Thomas recused himself from ANY CASE.

Finally……

The general rule is that, to warrant recusal, a judge's expression of an opinion about the merits of a case, or his familiarity with the facts or the parties, must have originated in a source outside the case itself. This is referred to in the United States as the "extra-judicial source rule" and was recognized as a general presumption, although not an invariable one, in the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Liteky v. United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification

Now lets cut the crap. It's over!

your complaining about Thomas in lawrence v texas where he apparently sided with you?

Ive tried to get through Romer v Evans.....it is a muddled mess of an opinion, with double negatives negated and similar verbal gymnastics.......I have other comment on the board about that case.

Scalia and Thomas may have had opinions on the matter, maybe even been biased,,.............but they didnt opt to preside over gay weddings publicly when the issue was before the court..........thus proclaiming for all the world how seriously they would take opposition arguments.....it also shows, as does the Valentines Day opinion, that their opinions were based more on emotions than law and logic.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know............I worked for the government for over 20 years in the U.S. Navy as a Personnelman (ship's clerk), and can tell you that the regulations change on a regular basis. Shoot...........we got manual changes every quarter that we had to incorporate into our manuals, and it was because procedures and regulations were changed.

Now, like I said............I was a ship's clerk, responsible for taking care of the personnel records and pay for all the enlisted onboard the ship. Now, if I'd refused to process a Record of Emergency Data (page 2), because 2 gay people got married, because if I did that, I'd be going against my spiritual beliefs because by typing the page 2, I'm affirming their marriage, I would have been busted and possibly discharged for doing pretty much what she did.

If she won't do the job, she has no business in staying. If she interrupts the issuance of marriage licenses again, she should be jailed until she's been impeached and fired from her job.

Besides..................even Jesus thinks she should step down. Matter of fact, He said it when He said this:

Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Now, basically, what He was saying was that if something causes you to sin, you should get rid of it, because it's better to go to Heaven missing parts, than to have the behavior continue and your whole body ends up in Hell.

In her case, it's her job that offends her because gay marriage is against her dogma and faith. What should she do, according to Jesus? Pluck it out, or in this case, leave her job and find another one.

Why is it that you Christians fight so hard for cherry picked parts of the Bible, while ignoring important ones?