Kim Davis Officially Wins

[frigidweirdo]

[

It's not over, clearly when this gets to the Supreme Court, it'll be turned over. Is anyone in doubt this will happen?

Yeah I doubt it will happen since even the un-elected dictators on SCOTUS have better things to waste tax payer money on than to rule on whether it's unconstitutional for a marriage license NOT to have a county clerks name on it.

And if it becomes a problem the SCOTUS will just write law like they did the first time.

They didn't write law. If you had any understanding of what happened, you'd know that. But hey, just rewrite history for your own political whims.

 

[Freewill]

[

It's not over, clearly when this gets to the Supreme Court, it'll be turned over. Is anyone in doubt this will happen?

Yeah I doubt it will happen since even the un-elected dictators on SCOTUS have better things to waste tax payer money on than to rule on whether it's unconstitutional for a marriage license NOT to have a county clerks name on it.

And if it becomes a problem the SCOTUS will just write law like they did the first time.

They didn't write law. If you had any understanding of what happened, you'd know that. But hey, just rewrite history for your own political whims.

Let me ask, did any states prior to the SCOTUS rewriting laws pass laws accommodating gay marriage? The answer is obviously yes. So the SCOTUS ruling really didn't apply to them.

Now ask this, did the states change their laws to allow for accommodation of gay marriage because of the SCOTUS? The obvious answer was NO. Their laws were invalidated thus making them accept gay marriage in spite of their laws not making that accommodation. So the SCOTUS be default wrote state law.

Now, if the SCOTUS had ruled the laws unconstitutional, which they did. Then that should have invalidated those laws. Which would have meant that no marriages would be performed until state law was changed to what the SCOTUS decided was constitutional. But the SCOTUS didn't do that they merely waved their gavel and made law.

 

[frigidweirdo]

[

It's not over, clearly when this gets to the Supreme Court, it'll be turned over. Is anyone in doubt this will happen?

Yeah I doubt it will happen since even the un-elected dictators on SCOTUS have better things to waste tax payer money on than to rule on whether it's unconstitutional for a marriage license NOT to have a county clerks name on it.

And if it becomes a problem the SCOTUS will just write law like they did the first time.

They didn't write law. If you had any understanding of what happened, you'd know that. But hey, just rewrite history for your own political whims.

Let me ask, did any states prior to the SCOTUS rewriting laws pass laws accommodating gay marriage? The answer is obviously yes. So the SCOTUS ruling really didn't apply to them.

Now ask this, did the states change their laws to allow for accommodation of gay marriage because of the SCOTUS? The obvious answer was NO. Their laws were invalidated thus making them accept gay marriage in spite of their laws not making that accommodation. So the SCOTUS be default wrote state law.

Now, if the SCOTUS had ruled the laws unconstitutional, which they did. Then that should have invalidated those laws. Which would have meant that no marriages would be performed until state law was changed to what the SCOTUS decided was constitutional. But the SCOTUS didn't do that they merely waved their gavel and made law.

Say for example a state makes a law making it okay for people to discriminate against black people based on their religion and the Supreme Court rules that this law is unconstitutional. Have they re-written the law? No, they haven't.
They've merely told the state that the law they have in place is not constitutional.

The same thing has happened with gay marriage. They told the states their laws were not constitutional and they should write new laws.

It's quite simple.

 

[Freewill]

[

It's not over, clearly when this gets to the Supreme Court, it'll be turned over. Is anyone in doubt this will happen?

Yeah I doubt it will happen since even the un-elected dictators on SCOTUS have better things to waste tax payer money on than to rule on whether it's unconstitutional for a marriage license NOT to have a county clerks name on it.

And if it becomes a problem the SCOTUS will just write law like they did the first time.

They didn't write law. If you had any understanding of what happened, you'd know that. But hey, just rewrite history for your own political whims.

Let me ask, did any states prior to the SCOTUS rewriting laws pass laws accommodating gay marriage? The answer is obviously yes. So the SCOTUS ruling really didn't apply to them.

Now ask this, did the states change their laws to allow for accommodation of gay marriage because of the SCOTUS? The obvious answer was NO. Their laws were invalidated thus making them accept gay marriage in spite of their laws not making that accommodation. So the SCOTUS be default wrote state law.

Now, if the SCOTUS had ruled the laws unconstitutional, which they did. Then that should have invalidated those laws. Which would have meant that no marriages would be performed until state law was changed to what the SCOTUS decided was constitutional. But the SCOTUS didn't do that they merely waved their gavel and made law.

Say for example a state makes a law making it okay for people to discriminate against black people based on their religion and the Supreme Court rules that this law is unconstitutional. Have they re-written the law? No, they haven't.
They've merely told the state that the law they have in place is not constitutional.

The same thing has happened with gay marriage. They told the states their laws were not constitutional and they should write new laws.

It's quite simple.

Two points, once again, being black and being gay are way two different things.

You ignore what I posted yet agree with what I posted and pretend not to.

Using your example, what happened to the law concerning discrimination against black people? They were invalidated, they went away. That is not the case for gay marriage. Perfectly valid laws were magically re-worded to include gay marriage. There were few states that had changed their laws to prohibit gay marriage, I don't believe there were any.

Being black is a condition of birth. Marriage is a social construct, big difference.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yeah I doubt it will happen since even the un-elected dictators on SCOTUS have better things to waste tax payer money on than to rule on whether it's unconstitutional for a marriage license NOT to have a county clerks name on it.

And if it becomes a problem the SCOTUS will just write law like they did the first time.

They didn't write law. If you had any understanding of what happened, you'd know that. But hey, just rewrite history for your own political whims.

Let me ask, did any states prior to the SCOTUS rewriting laws pass laws accommodating gay marriage? The answer is obviously yes. So the SCOTUS ruling really didn't apply to them.

Now ask this, did the states change their laws to allow for accommodation of gay marriage because of the SCOTUS? The obvious answer was NO. Their laws were invalidated thus making them accept gay marriage in spite of their laws not making that accommodation. So the SCOTUS be default wrote state law.

Now, if the SCOTUS had ruled the laws unconstitutional, which they did. Then that should have invalidated those laws. Which would have meant that no marriages would be performed until state law was changed to what the SCOTUS decided was constitutional. But the SCOTUS didn't do that they merely waved their gavel and made law.

Say for example a state makes a law making it okay for people to discriminate against black people based on their religion and the Supreme Court rules that this law is unconstitutional. Have they re-written the law? No, they haven't.
They've merely told the state that the law they have in place is not constitutional.

The same thing has happened with gay marriage. They told the states their laws were not constitutional and they should write new laws.

It's quite simple.

Two points, once again, being black and being gay are way two different things.

You ignore what I posted yet agree with what I posted and pretend not to.

Using your example, what happened to the law concerning discrimination against black people? They were invalidated, they went away. That is not the case for gay marriage. Perfectly valid laws were magically re-worded to include gay marriage. There were few states that had changed their laws to prohibit gay marriage, I don't believe there were any.

Being black is a condition of birth. Marriage is a social construct, big difference.

Yes, being black and being gay are different.

However in the USA, with human rights enshrined into the Constitution, it doesn't matter whether you're different or not, you're protected just the same.

 

[hadit]

If the marriage license is valid and the marriage recognized as legal why would anyone sue. It seems like everyone is getting what they want and no ones rights are being violated.

I think therein lies the rub. People don't just want to make sure no one's rights are being violated, they want to punish her for holding these opinions. They don't want her working, they want her in jail, and quite frankly put gay people getting marriage licenses lower in priority order.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If the marriage license is valid and the marriage recognized as legal why would anyone sue. It seems like everyone is getting what they want and no ones rights are being violated.

I think therein lies the rub. People don't just want to make sure no one's rights are being violated, they want to punish her for holding these opinions. They don't want her working, they want her in jail, and quite frankly put gay people getting marriage licenses lower in priority order.

People don't care what opinions she holds. They just want her to do her job without her opinions suddenly becoming policy of the US government. She wasn't elected to give her opinions as if she were the US government. She was elected to do her job, and she can't do it without letting her views get in the way of it.

 

[hadit]

If the marriage license is valid and the marriage recognized as legal why would anyone sue. It seems like everyone is getting what they want and no ones rights are being violated.

I think therein lies the rub. People don't just want to make sure no one's rights are being violated, they want to punish her for holding these opinions. They don't want her working, they want her in jail, and quite frankly put gay people getting marriage licenses lower in priority order.

People don't care what opinions she holds. They just want her to do her job without her opinions suddenly becoming policy of the US government. She wasn't elected to give her opinions as if she were the US government. She was elected to do her job, and she can't do it without letting her views get in the way of it.

Then we should celebrate this move by the governor, that allows her to keep her job and gay couples to get licenses. Everybody wins. Well, except those that want her punished for holding opinions.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If the marriage license is valid and the marriage recognized as legal why would anyone sue. It seems like everyone is getting what they want and no ones rights are being violated.

I think therein lies the rub. People don't just want to make sure no one's rights are being violated, they want to punish her for holding these opinions. They don't want her working, they want her in jail, and quite frankly put gay people getting marriage licenses lower in priority order.

People don't care what opinions she holds. They just want her to do her job without her opinions suddenly becoming policy of the US government. She wasn't elected to give her opinions as if she were the US government. She was elected to do her job, and she can't do it without letting her views get in the way of it.

Then we should celebrate this move by the governor, that allows her to keep her job and gay couples to get licenses. Everybody wins. Well, except those that want her punished for holding opinions.

But why would anyone celebrate when someone is elected to do a job, and then doesn't do it properly?

 

[hadit]

If the marriage license is valid and the marriage recognized as legal why would anyone sue. It seems like everyone is getting what they want and no ones rights are being violated.

I think therein lies the rub. People don't just want to make sure no one's rights are being violated, they want to punish her for holding these opinions. They don't want her working, they want her in jail, and quite frankly put gay people getting marriage licenses lower in priority order.

People don't care what opinions she holds. They just want her to do her job without her opinions suddenly becoming policy of the US government. She wasn't elected to give her opinions as if she were the US government. She was elected to do her job, and she can't do it without letting her views get in the way of it.

Then we should celebrate this move by the governor, that allows her to keep her job and gay couples to get licenses. Everybody wins. Well, except those that want her punished for holding opinions.

But why would anyone celebrate when someone is elected to do a job, and then doesn't do it properly?

Thanks to this development, now she will be. Like I said, everyone wins except those who just want to punish her for her opinions.

 

[Silhouette]

But why would anyone celebrate when someone is elected to do a job, and then doesn't do it properly?

You mistake what the celebration is about dear. The celebration is about curbing your cult's insatiable mania for forcing others to bow to your dogma; and in that act, abdicate key edicts of their own faith...like Romans 1 and Jude 1 of the Christian New Testament. "Thou shalt earnestly contend for the faith"...falls short with this compromise, but it's a beginning. More stringent protections for Christians from having to aide and abet gay cult stuff (stripping kids of either a mother or father for life as a matter of contract) to come...

If only your "civil rights campaign" wasn't based on behavior, you'd have a whole different avenue for progression forward. But we all knew the root of your cult would be exposed to the light of day. Behaviors, in law, cannot have special rights. In fact, behaviors can't escape the regulation of the majority at all, unless they are part of a religion. Let us know when the Church of LGBT gets its tax exempt status.

 

[Seawytch]

If the marriage license is valid and the marriage recognized as legal why would anyone sue. It seems like everyone is getting what they want and no ones rights are being violated.

I think therein lies the rub. People don't just want to make sure no one's rights are being violated, they want to punish her for holding these opinions. They don't want her working, they want her in jail, and quite frankly put gay people getting marriage licenses lower in priority order.

Wrong. We wanted her office to do the job they are paid to do. Some in her office were willing to do it so she didn't have to. That wasn't good enough for her. She wanted to impose her personal religious beliefs on her entire (secular) office.

Nobody wanted her in jail except her.

 

[hadit]

If the marriage license is valid and the marriage recognized as legal why would anyone sue. It seems like everyone is getting what they want and no ones rights are being violated.

I think therein lies the rub. People don't just want to make sure no one's rights are being violated, they want to punish her for holding these opinions. They don't want her working, they want her in jail, and quite frankly put gay people getting marriage licenses lower in priority order.

Wrong. We wanted her office to do the job they are paid to do. Some in her office were willing to do it so she didn't have to. That wasn't good enough for her. She wanted to impose her personal religious beliefs on her entire (secular) office.

Nobody wanted her in jail except her.

And the Governor's solution is a win for everyone. She keeps her job and gay people get licenses. What's not to celebrate?

 

[Seawytch]

If the marriage license is valid and the marriage recognized as legal why would anyone sue. It seems like everyone is getting what they want and no ones rights are being violated.

I think therein lies the rub. People don't just want to make sure no one's rights are being violated, they want to punish her for holding these opinions. They don't want her working, they want her in jail, and quite frankly put gay people getting marriage licenses lower in priority order.

Wrong. We wanted her office to do the job they are paid to do. Some in her office were willing to do it so she didn't have to. That wasn't good enough for her. She wanted to impose her personal religious beliefs on her entire (secular) office.

Nobody wanted her in jail except her.

And the Governor's solution is a win for everyone. She keeps her job and gay people get licenses. What's not to celebrate?

Gays already won. The Governor is saving face for Davis because she'd already lost. We already celebrated when her office had to issue licenses...long before the Gov saved face for her.

This is like a loser consolidation prize.

 

[hadit]

If the marriage license is valid and the marriage recognized as legal why would anyone sue. It seems like everyone is getting what they want and no ones rights are being violated.

I think therein lies the rub. People don't just want to make sure no one's rights are being violated, they want to punish her for holding these opinions. They don't want her working, they want her in jail, and quite frankly put gay people getting marriage licenses lower in priority order.

Wrong. We wanted her office to do the job they are paid to do. Some in her office were willing to do it so she didn't have to. That wasn't good enough for her. She wanted to impose her personal religious beliefs on her entire (secular) office.

Nobody wanted her in jail except her.

And the Governor's solution is a win for everyone. She keeps her job and gay people get licenses. What's not to celebrate?

Gays already won. The Governor is saving face for Davis because she'd already lost. We already celebrated when her office had to issue licenses...long before the Gov saved face for her.

This is like a loser consolidation prize.

Not really. She doesn't get punished for an opinion, and gets to keep her job in spite of all the hate.

 

[Silhouette]

Gays already won.

Won what? The "right" to deprive via contract a child of either a mother or father for life? Might want to read the entire decision and conclusion of New York vs Ferber (USSC 1982). To save you the time, it Found that even if an adult has an undisputed constitutional right, that right cannot be exercised if it results in physical or mental harm to a child or children. It's going to come up on future challenges on any one of a number of legitimate reasons to overturn Obergefell, so you might as well look it up now, read it well and prepare your defending arguments.

 

[sealybobo]

After being jailed and publicly ridiculed, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis finally got a law to protect her in the same-sex marriage license fight.

Republican Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin signed a bill Wednesday that brings “statutory finality” to the long battle over marriage licenses in the state, WLKY reports. Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis refused in 2015 to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples with her name on them, citing her religious belief in traditional marriage. She was sued and jailed for five days when a judge held her in contempt of court, but she was later released when other employees in the clerk’s office began issuing licenses.

The bill changes marriage licenses so they do not include the county clerk’s name and allow people to check whether they are a bride, groom or spouse.



Read more: Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Just Officially Won The Same-Sex Marriage License Battle

We all win!

 

[mdk]

Gays already won.

Won what? The "right" to deprive via contract a child of either a mother or father for life? Might want to read the entire decision and conclusion of New York vs Ferber (USSC 1982). To save you the time, it Found that even if an adult has an undisputed constitutional right, that right cannot be exercised if it results in physical or mental harm to a child or children. It's going to come up on future challenges on any one of a number of legitimate reasons to overturn Obergefell, so you might as well look it up now, read it well and prepare your defending arguments.

No, it's not going to come up on future challenges. I wonder why Ferber was never once mentioned in any of the 4 dissents? Perhaps, b/c it had nothing to do with the case? Just a guess. lol. Keep throwing legal shit against the wall, though. It is quite enjoyable to watch.

 

[aaronleland]

She won? Gays can still get married. They only rendered her useless to the process.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays already won.

Won what? The "right" to deprive via contract a child of either a mother or father for life? Might want to read the entire decision and conclusion of New York vs Ferber (USSC 1982). To save you the time, it Found that even if an adult has an undisputed constitutional right, that right cannot be exercised if it results in physical or mental harm to a child or children. It's going to come up on future challenges on any one of a number of legitimate reasons to overturn Obergefell, so you might as well look it up now, read it well and prepare your defending arguments.

LOL......