Two sides to every coin: Kim Davis

[g5000]

link
Same-sex marriage in California - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From February 12 to March 11, 2004, under the direction of Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, officials of the City and County of San Francisco issued marriage licenses to approximately 4,000 same-sex couples. During the month that licenses were issued, couples traveled from all over the United States and from other countries to be married. On August 12, citing the mayor's lack of authority to bypass state law, the Supreme Court of California ruled that the marriages were void.

As has been pointed out, this was prior to Prop 8.

The rule of law prevailed in that case, too. The marriages were all anulled.

We're still waiting for the topic starter to back up the premises of this topic.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

When Prop 8 was in effect in California, you had clerks outrightly ignoring the law by marrying gay couples. There were no consequences, but they violated the law nonetheless. Liberals hailed them as heroes.

When the Supreme Court upheld the right of citizens to bear arms, clerks in Washington DC refused to issue gun permits. Once again, no consequences, and once again, they broke the law and liberals hailed it as an act of courage.

Those states which passed legislation legalizing marijuana did so in the face of established federal laws banning marijuana use. No consequences. None.

When Kate Steinle was murdered San Francisco, it was made clear that the city was one of dozens of "sanctuary cities" across America that do not enforce Federal immigration law. Once again, no consequences. No nothing. Someone died because of the willful noncompliance, because the city chose to let the murderer go instead of handing him over to federal custody. Yet liberals hail these kinds of places. Why?

And then ultimately there's Obama, who completely ignores the Supreme Court and therefore the US Constitution in general, and suffers no consequences for such behavior.

But when we get to the lowly clerk in Kentucky, suddenly the law applies. As it should. I happen to hold both sides accountable to the law. Laws are legal until they are struck down or stayed pending an appeal or what have you and anyone who is anyone should be made to obey the law. Not a difficult concept.

I know, I know, "in Nazi Germany, what Hitler did was legal" and all, but we are not nor will we ever be a country ruled by a genocidal megalomaniac. A great deal (but not all) of our laws are justified and rooted in precedent.

Here's the thing. We are a nation of laws. When we become a nation of men, we are done. Finished. The great experiment will fail. Kim Davis should still uphold her oath and obey the law, and we should hold that same expectation for all government officials instead of looking the other way when they don't.

Man should obey the law, not make the law obey man.

The problem is that the clerk was elected to her position by the people. It is HER office. Legally speaking, those other clerks in HER office work for HER. I venture that any marriage license issued by anyone other than that duly elected clerk is null and void if issued without her permission. These gay and lesbians who are getting these marriage licenses are really not legally married folks because the licenses they were issued were not issued under HER auspices with her blessings.

There is a section of Kentucky law that states that the County Clerk's authority is ceded to their deputy while the Clerk is outside of the county. She is being held one county over, specifically for this reason.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When Prop 8 was in effect in California, you had clerks outrightly ignoring the law by marrying gay couples. There were no consequences, but they violated the law nonetheless. Liberals hailed them as heroes.

When the Supreme Court upheld the right of citizens to bear arms, clerks in Washington DC refused to issue gun permits. Once again, no consequences, and once again, they broke the law and liberals hailed it as an act of courage.

Those states which passed legislation legalizing marijuana did so in the face of established federal laws banning marijuana use. No consequences. None.

When Kate Steinle was murdered San Francisco, it was made clear that the city was one of dozens of "sanctuary cities" across America that do not enforce Federal immigration law. Once again, no consequences. No nothing. Someone died because of the willful noncompliance, because the city chose to let the murderer go instead of handing him over to federal custody. Yet liberals hail these kinds of places. Why?

And then ultimately there's Obama, who completely ignores the Supreme Court and therefore the US Constitution in general, and suffers no consequences for such behavior.

But when we get to the lowly clerk in Kentucky, suddenly the law applies. As it should. I happen to hold both sides accountable to the law. Laws are legal until they are struck down or stayed pending an appeal or what have you and anyone who is anyone should be made to obey the law. Not a difficult concept.

I know, I know, "in Nazi Germany, what Hitler did was legal" and all, but we are not nor will we ever be a country ruled by a genocidal megalomaniac. A great deal (but not all) of our laws are justified and rooted in precedent.

Here's the thing. We are a nation of laws. When we become a nation of men, we are done. Finished. The great experiment will fail. Kim Davis should still uphold her oath and obey the law, and we should hold that same expectation for all government officials instead of looking the other way when they don't.

Man should obey the law, not make the law obey man.

What's your point? You concede the law is right on the Davis case.

 

[ogibillm]

actually, the clerks that issued the same sex licenses were doing their jobs.

Before Prop 8 was struck down? Surely not. They were disobeying the law. But they got a pass huh?

Prop 8 was unconstitutional

 

[bodecea]

Clerks have never been able to marry people. They were forced to issue gun permits. Federal authorities busted a lot of businesses that were legal by state law. Your crap about Obama is just stupid right wing hyperbole. None of the situations you mentioned were allowed to continue. She was warned what would happen just as the previously mentioned situations received warnings. Perhaps she should have done what the other clerks chose to do. Obey the law.

Yes, let the butthurt flow through you young one..

So, do you acknowledge that Democratic clerks in the past chose not to do their jobs just like Kim Davis did? Or is what she's doing simply the exception to the rule?

Ahh, and we have to resort to agism. Can it you old crone.

If another Democratic clerk did not do their job....this is the legal process...was it followed? Complain...if not corrected...file a lawsuit...go to court...court agrees with you, the clerk still doesn't do their job...go to higher court, etc. all the way to the Supreme Court....if clerk still doesn't do their job, option on court to find them in contempt.

Did this happen in any other case you referred to?

 

[bodecea]

actually, the clerks that issued the same sex licenses were doing their jobs.

Before Prop 8 was struck down? Surely not. They were disobeying the law. But they got a pass huh?

How do you think PropH8 was struck down? By people filing lawsuits and challenging its constitutionality in court. Geesh....did you ever take U.S. Government?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Link?

To your first request:

2004: California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, Democrat (Mayor of San Francisco at the time) directed city clerks to issue same sex licenses in direct violation of the same sex marriage ban in place.

CNN.com - Mayor defends same-sex marriages - Feb. 22, 2004

2009: As Attorney General, Jerry Brown chose not to defend the State of California in Hollingsworth v. Perry, shirking his sworn duties as State's Attorney.

2013: Attorney General Kamala Harris followed in Brown's footsteps by refusing to defend Prop 8 in court, deeming that "it was unconstitutional."

Per Article 5 Section 13 of the California Constitution which states:

Subject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State. It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced. ...

And so, prior to Prop 8 being struck down, both Brown and Harris were obligated to enforce that law with equal diligence as the others. They cannot rule on the constitutionality of a law, they are required to enforce them. When the people of California voted to ban gay marriage, the Attorney General essentially told the people to go screw themselves. Interesting. These are elected officials, like Kim Davis, who refused to enforce the law.

But when Kim Davis does it, she deserves jailtime. That my friend is a double standard.

Link?

Don't need them for your second request.

Washington DC itself has been reprimanded by the courts at least three times over its restrictive gun laws. And its continued defiance of court rulings commanding it to comply.

June 2008: The Supreme Court in Heller v. DC rules to uphold the right of the citizens to bear arms. However, DC continued to enforce strict gun restrictions in defiance of Heller.

June 2014: The US District Court in Washington DC ruled in Palmer v. DC that:

In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional.

May 2015: A judge in Wrenn v. DC, issues a preliminary injunction of D.C. Code § 22-4506(a), which required citizens to provide a "good reason" for applying for a permit. As seen here:

..if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol, and that he or she is a suitable person to be so licensed...

The opinion stated:

The District of Columbia's arbitrary "good 13 reason"/"proper reason" requirement ... goes far beyond establishing such reasonable restrictions. Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Once again, this ruling was demonstrative evidence of DC's continued defiance of the Heller ruling. Thus far, it has suffered no impactful legal consequences for its defiance of the courts. Nobody was fired.

But when Kim Davis does so in regards to gay marriage, she is thrown in jail. While she should fulfill her duties as an elected official, it seems here that she is the only one being held under the microscope by the Left. Yet they didn't mind when elected officials in California and DC continued to refuse enforcement of laws passed by referendum or in lieu of Supreme Court rulings.

 

[TemplarKormac]

actually, the clerks that issued the same sex licenses were doing their jobs.

Before Prop 8 was struck down? Surely not. They were disobeying the law. But they got a pass huh?

Prop 8 was unconstitutional

So? Before Prop 8 was brought to the Supreme Court, it was upheld by the California Supreme Court. In the time between that and the SCOTUS ruling, Prop 8 was still in effect in the State of California. Anyone issuing same sex licenses during that time did so in defiance of existing law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your comparisons don't work. The SCOTUS hasn't ruled against either Marijuana legalization, or "sanctuary cities", and both are examples of locally passed laws that contradict or circumvent federal laws, not examples of people refusing to do their legal jobs because of "religion".

So that's how you justify it. Law is law. Whether you cite your religious beliefs or plurality due to your legislative power in contrary to the law, you still break the law. That is a fact. Federal Laws are absolute, Supreme Court rulings are absolute. But when cities, states and state's attorneys defy existing law or court precedent, suddenly those laws and rulings aren't so absolute anymore, are they?

Link? How has Obama "completely ignored the Supreme Court"?

Can't any of you do your own research?

Obama Administration Vows to Ignore Supreme Court Ruling on Coal Power Plant Emissions

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/10/obama-administration-to-recognize-utah-same-sex-marriages/

Obama defies the Supreme Court and chills speech

Obama defies federal judge, fails to rescind wrongly issued amnesties

Obama skirts Supreme Court Hobby Lobby birth-control ruling - Washington Times

Administration Issues Final Contraceptive Mandate Rules In Defiance of Supreme Court -

 

[TemplarKormac]

The law comes from man. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

Yes it is.

Law comes from men who refuse to let their instincts and emotions to dictate otherwise. And then there men are men who ignore the law and regards it as secondary to his interests or viewpoints.

 

[bodecea]

Link?

To your first request:

2004: California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, Democrat (Mayor of San Francisco at the time) directed city clerks to issue same sex licenses in direct violation of the same sex marriage ban in place.

CNN.com - Mayor defends same-sex marriages - Feb. 22, 2004

2009: As Attorney General, Jerry Brown chose not to defend the State of California in Hollingsworth v. Perry, shirking his sworn duties as State's Attorney.

2013: Attorney General Kamala Harris followed in Brown's footsteps by refusing to defend Prop 8 in court, deeming that "it was unconstitutional."

Per Article 5 Section 13 of the California Constitution which states:

Subject to the powers and duties of the Governor, the Attorney General shall be the chief law officer of the State. It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to see that the laws of the State are uniformly and adequately enforced. ...

And so, prior to Prop 8 being struck down, both Brown and Harris were obligated to enforce that law with equal diligence as the others. They cannot rule on the constitutionality of a law, they are required to enforce them. When the people of California voted to ban gay marriage, the Attorney General essentially told the people to go screw themselves. Interesting. These are elected officials, like Kim Davis, who refused to enforce the law.

But when Kim Davis does it, she deserves jailtime. That my friend is a double standard.

Link?

Don't need them for your second request.

Washington DC itself has been reprimanded by the courts at least three times over its restrictive gun laws. And its continued defiance of court rulings commanding it to comply.

June 2008: The Supreme Court in Heller v. DC rules to uphold the right of the citizens to bear arms. However, DC continued to enforce strict gun restrictions in defiance of Heller.

June 2014: The US District Court in Washington DC ruled in Palmer v. DC that:

In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional.

May 2015: A judge in Wrenn v. DC, issues a preliminary injunction of D.C. Code § 22-4506(a), which required citizens to provide a "good reason" for applying for a permit. As seen here:

..if it appears that the applicant has good reason to fear injury to his or her person or property or has any other proper reason for carrying a pistol, and that he or she is a suitable person to be so licensed...

The opinion stated:

The District of Columbia's arbitrary "good 13 reason"/"proper reason" requirement ... goes far beyond establishing such reasonable restrictions. Rather, for all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Once again, this ruling was demonstrative evidence of DC's continued defiance of the Heller ruling. Thus far, it has suffered no impactful legal consequences for its defiance of the courts. Nobody was fired.

But when Kim Davis does so in regards to gay marriage, she is thrown in jail. While she should fulfill her duties as an elected official, it seems here that she is the only one being held under the microscope by the Left. Yet they didn't mind when elected officials in California and DC continued to refuse enforcement of laws passed by referendum or in lieu of Supreme Court rulings.

Did you know that 2004 comes before 2008? That's right, it does. Newsome was slapped down for his illegal acts too, and he stopped until Gay Marriage became legal.

And...did you know that attorney generals have always had the option to not defend a law they feel is going to be struck down as unconstitutional? Yep, always been that way.

Now...you should tell us more about how Newsome in 2004 went against Prop H8 which didn't pass til 2008.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The problem is that the clerk was elected to her position by the people.

Right, and by refusing to issue any licenses whatsoever, she is breaking the law. And betraying the trust of her constituents.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes, let the butthurt flow through you young one..

So, do you acknowledge that Democratic clerks in the past chose not to do their jobs just like Kim Davis did? Or is what she's doing simply the exception to the rule?

Ahh, and we have to resort to agism. Can it you old crone.

Clerks of all parties have refused to do their jobs for one reason or the other. Not one has been allowed to continue shirking their duties.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Your comparisons don't work. The SCOTUS hasn't ruled against either Marijuana legalization, or "sanctuary cities", and both are examples of locally passed laws that contradict or circumvent federal laws, not examples of people refusing to do their legal jobs because of "religion".

So that's how you justify it. Law is law. Whether you cite your religious beliefs or plurality due to your legislative power in contrary to the law, you still break the law. That is a fact. Federal Laws are absolute, Supreme Court rulings are absolute. But when cities, states and state's attorneys defy existing law or court precedent, suddenly those laws and rulings aren't so absolute anymore, are they?

Link? How has Obama "completely ignored the Supreme Court"?

Can't any of you do your own research?

Obama Administration Vows to Ignore Supreme Court Ruling on Coal Power Plant Emissions

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/10/obama-administration-to-recognize-utah-same-sex-marriages/

Obama defies the Supreme Court and chills speech

Obama defies federal judge, fails to rescind wrongly issued amnesties

Obama skirts Supreme Court Hobby Lobby birth-control ruling - Washington Times

Administration Issues Final Contraceptive Mandate Rules In Defiance of Supreme Court -

You made the claims, it's your research, not mine - and no, I won't do it for you.

None of your links provide examples of Obama "ignoring" the SCOTUS. Did you actually read them, or just the headlines?

They're all just conservative opinion pieces, none of them contain any actual actions taken by the Obama administration that go against SCOTUS orders. The first article you posted is pure nonsense - it's nothing more than a quote from the White House press secretary taken out of context. The second link does not even mention the SCOTUS. The third is an Op-Ed referring to Obama trying to make an end-run around Citizen's United, and has no mention of Obama "ignoring" the SCOTUS. The fifth has nothing to do with the SCOTUS at all. The sixth is again an Op-Ed about "skirting" the rules. The final link is also entirely rhetorical.

You need something better than "Hey, this guy on the internet said it, so it must be true!"

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The law comes from man. It's not as simple as you make it out to be.

Yes it is.

Law comes from men who refuse to let their instincts and emotions to dictate otherwise. And then there men are men who ignore the law and regards it as secondary to his interests or viewpoints.

Man is consistently fallible, as are all laws. Your belief in "purity" of the law is naive.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your belief in "purity" of the law is naive.

So be it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2015pres/07/20150710a.html <----These rules were finalized in defiance of the Hobby Lobby decision

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/u...nges-with-the-us.html?smid=tw-share<-----This was done in defiance of the Supreme Court striking down a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

[URL='http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ogram-after-arizona-court-ruling/]<------Even States face uphill climb on immigration enforcement after court ruling, DHS shift[/URL] Even though the rest of the law was struck down, the SCOTUS upheld the "show me your papers" provision of the Arizona Immigration Law. But the Obama Administration canceled enforcement agreements with the state of Arizona under the Section 287(g) program in response. Taking a direct action to nullify a SCOTUS ruling by not enforcing a law is well, defiance of the law and the supreme court.

Like I said. Guilty as charged.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2015pres/07/20150710a.html <----These rules were finalized in defiance of the Hobby Lobby decision

Which one of those rules is in "defiance" of the Hobby Lobby decision?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/u...nges-with-the-us.html?smid=tw-share<-----This was done in defiance of the Supreme Court striking down a key part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Finding a legal pathway around a decision in court is not "ignoring" it.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Thursday moved to protect minority voters after last month’s Supreme Court ruling striking down a central part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, with the Justice Department asking a court to require Texas to get permission from the federal government before making changes.

[URL='http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ogram-after-arizona-court-ruling/]<------Even States face uphill climb on immigration enforcement after court ruling, DHS shift[/URL] Even though the rest of the law was struck down, the SCOTUS upheld the "show me your papers" provision of the Arizona Immigration Law. But the Obama Administration canceled enforcement agreements with the state of Arizona under the Section 287(g) program in response. Taking a direct action to nullify a SCOTUS ruling by not enforcing a law is well, defiance of the law and the supreme court.

Like I said. Guilty as charged.

Finding legal pathways around court rulings is not "ignoring" them, it's working around them.

 

[candycorn]

Link?

To your first request:

2004: California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, Democrat (Mayor of San Francisco at the time) directed city clerks to issue same sex licenses in direct violation of the same sex marriage ban in place.

CNN.com - Mayor defends same-sex marriages - Feb. 22, 2004

Well, lets review:

Here is what you said in the OP:

When Prop 8 was in effect in California, you had clerks outrightly ignoring the law by marrying gay couples. There were no consequences, but they violated the law nonetheless. Liberals hailed them as heroes.


Proposition 8 was voted on in the 2008 election 4 years after your above citation.

Wow, that was easy. Thanks for playing.

Check please.

 

[David_42]

Link?

To your first request:

2004: California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, Democrat (Mayor of San Francisco at the time) directed city clerks to issue same sex licenses in direct violation of the same sex marriage ban in place.

CNN.com - Mayor defends same-sex marriages - Feb. 22, 2004

Well, lets review:

Here is what you said in the OP:

When Prop 8 was in effect in California, you had clerks outrightly ignoring the law by marrying gay couples. There were no consequences, but they violated the law nonetheless. Liberals hailed them as heroes.


Proposition 8 was voted on in the 2008 election 4 years after your above citation.

Wow, that was easy. Thanks for playing.

Check please.

The OP ran.