Once again, a democrat stands on the wrong side of history
Democrat Kim Davis still refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Why hasn’t she been arrested?
34 Responses to “Once again, a democrat stands on the wrong side of history”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
September 2nd, 2015 at 8:14 pm
As far as I know Kentucky has not passed law that she has broken She is elected. They can impeach her for failure to perform her duties Just like Obama fails in his duties.
September 2nd, 2015 at 8:20 pm
I’m more concerned that the case is in federal court. It’s not a federal function to define a state official’s duties. Bivens action? That seems a little over the line. The remedy and venue are a writ of mandamus to compel an official to perform a ministerial act in a state court.
September 2nd, 2015 at 8:23 pm
She’s not issuing marriage licenses to anybody, gay, straight, mixed-race, virginal, previously divorced, etc.
At least one of those classifications is “shall issue.”
September 2nd, 2015 at 9:16 pm
She’s doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Allowing her religious convictions to determine how she carries out her government job function is a direct violation of Constitutional intent.
That her government job entail(ed) performing a religious function is a direct violation of Constitutional intent.
September 2nd, 2015 at 9:29 pm
Oh…and calling for federal enforcement/incarceration of a state/local function/functionary? Talk about being on he wrong side of history.
September 2nd, 2015 at 11:52 pm
She’s being told to do something which was illegal for her to do when she was elected. I certainly would put up a fight if in the middle of a contract, something I wasn’t allowed to do and didn’t want to do suddenly became required.
September 3rd, 2015 at 5:57 am
@Rob: So you are saying that a politician who, when elected, was tasked with enforcing an unconstitutional law, must continue to enforce that law while in office, even AFTER the courts rule it to be unconstitutional?
I would point to Ray Nagin, and ask you to apply that logic to the New Orleans gun confiscations.
As to the other comments here, claiming that the Feds can’t overrule a state law: that ship has sailed. The 14th Amendment has taken care of that, and whether we like it or not, I didn’t see too many complaints here when the McDonald decision came down.
Or do you think that Chicago’s gun ban should still be enforced?
That’s the funny thing about rights: You have to respect the other guy’s rights even when you don’t like them, if you expect him to respect yours.
September 3rd, 2015 at 8:33 am
According to Al Gore’s internets, the two corksoakers who are suing her are not from that county or even from Kentucky. They’re from Ohio. I think that makes a big difference in the balance of equities. It seems to me that the fudgepackers’ purpose is not marriage but just to do dirt in that Kentucky county. To advance their agenda.
September 3rd, 2015 at 8:57 am
I doubt the DNC wants to call too much attention to it. The Justice Dept would have been all over it if she were a Republican.
Whether or not there is a clear violation of statute is irrelevant.
IF it gets enough traction, the “Democrat” tag will be scrubbed in favor of “bitter-clinger.”
September 3rd, 2015 at 9:01 am
The clerk is on the right side of history in resisting it responsible,accountable Govermentand ” the guarantee of a republican form of government” (Article IV, Section 4). The courts are NOT Iindependent, but are to be ” bound by the law” (Article VI, Section 2) Everyone has a right to marry ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION of a long established institution codified legally ” by the several States”. SCOTUS CHANGED THE DEFINITION of marriage, violating one of the many powers ” reserved to the States and the People” (10th Amendment). Otherwise what other legal institutions should the high court overturn when a few or some choose not to abide by the criterion set legally by States?
September 3rd, 2015 at 9:15 am
+1 Divemedic.
Kim Davis is refusing to issue a shall-issue license even after the Supreme Court said she must. Twice.
Kim needs a new line of work before she understands what contempt of court is all about. Won’t shed a tear if she loses her house or goes to jail over this. Not one.
September 3rd, 2015 at 9:30 am
I think she is just following the example of her “Dear Leader” to do whatever she “feels” like doing. It has worked for him so far and will probably work for her, until it doesn’t.
September 3rd, 2015 at 9:40 am
Why hasn’t she been arrested?
Same reason Hillary hasn’t…
September 3rd, 2015 at 9:57 am
Uncle, you’re the one on the wrong side of history.
I know you’ve been a gay marriage cheerleader for years, but the rest of us are tired of having this shite shoved down our throats, and we’re in the majority not you.
September 3rd, 2015 at 10:15 am
@nk: “According to Al Gore’s internets, the [couple] who are suing her are not from that county or even from Kentucky. They’re from Ohio.”
Source? Because from what I can find, at least one of the gay couples suing her lives in that county, and two of the other couples are straight. Don’t forget, she’s not issuing ANY marriage licenses, not just denying them to gay couples.
Not that where they live is truly relevant. If KY law allows issuance of marriage licenses to out of state residents, then her job requires that she issue them.
Bottom line: If she cannot in good faith perform a required part of her job, then she needs to resign.
September 3rd, 2015 at 12:03 pm
Sometimes SCOTUS should admit that it is ” bound by the law” and that certain decisions are not within the powers delegated to the Federal Government by the States:
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
September 3rd, 2015 at 3:50 pm
Latest word is that she has been jailed…
I fully expect that all of the Mayors of sanctuary cities are next… right?
September 3rd, 2015 at 4:36 pm
No Mek. While the 14th Amendment was erroneously applied by a rogue judiciary to redefine the lawful institution of marriage, it is flagrantly disregarded when elected officials are allowed to violate their Constitutional duties to enforce laws equally or selectively enforce them.
September 3rd, 2015 at 5:05 pm
Here is the Article from USAToday. No mention of her party.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/03/rowan-county-ky-court-clerk-marriage-licenses-gays/71635794/
The last line of the article is a hoot POTUS doesn’t enforce laws he doesn’t like…and makes up other laws that aren’t on the books.
September 3rd, 2015 at 5:05 pm
What’s the problem here? We all know that freedom of conscience and freedom of religion don’t count when gays are involved, right? Just the way the Framers intended, right?
September 3rd, 2015 at 6:32 pm
“Allowing her religious convictions to determine how she carries out her government job function is a direct violation of Constitutional intent.”
Not the way I read the first amendment, which exists to protect religious freedom from government encroachment, and not the other way around. Yours is a more recent interpretation, and it’s also wrong.
“That her government job entail(ed) performing a religious function is a direct violation of Constitutional intent.”
Maybe, but then you’ll have to explain why there have been government-paid military and Congressional chaplains, and why the Prayer Breakfasts, et al? Why did the early Congress set out to print and distribute Bibles?;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Aitken_(publisher)
Were the Founders themselves violating the first amendment that they themselves drafted? No. They understood the “nor prohibit the free exercise” part of the first amendment.
You can certainly argue for gay marriage, but not with the first amendment.
September 3rd, 2015 at 7:15 pm
Of course, this is all the wrong argument.
Why the fuck is the government having a say in who can or cannot get married?
September 3rd, 2015 at 7:33 pm
Because the government the fuck uses marital status to determine.
September 3rd, 2015 at 7:50 pm
Your reading of the First Amendment is exactly backwards. As a government official, she has a duty to be religiously neutral and can’t impose her religious views onto her constituents. If her religious views conflict with her oath of office, she needs resign. Just like a person who claims her religious views (say, if she’s a Quaker or something) prevent her from issuing shall-issue concealed carry permits would be violating her oath.
No, you’re not.
September 3rd, 2015 at 8:55 pm
Thank you, Jake @ 15. For the record, I never voted for Al Gore.
September 3rd, 2015 at 8:59 pm
No, YOUR reading of the First Amendment is exactly backwards.
The belief that heterosexual marriage is equal to gay marriage denies the reality that it is simply not physically possible for gay couples to do something that is the characteristic of straight couples – reproduction.
The only way for this belief system to ‘work’ is reduce gay and traditional marriage to their lowest common denominators – two names on a piece of paper – then the ‘believers’ will get the equality they want.
Who is really forcing their beliefs on others?
September 3rd, 2015 at 11:55 pm
A government agent doesn’t get to force his or her religious preferences on citizens, FULL STOP. By saying that it’s against her religion to issue marriage certificates, she’s enforcering HER religous views onto other people, regardless of what you or she thinks about the matter.
As for your “procreation” gotcha…it’s complete bullshit. Between the fact that we don’t stop infertile couples from getting married or annul marriages to couples who are no longer fertile, and the fact that science can and does allow homosexual couples to procreate through various means, it absolutely falls apart as any sort of rational justification.
September 4th, 2015 at 12:28 am
As for your “procreation” gotcha…it’s complete bullshit. Between the fact that we don’t stop infertile couples from getting married or annul marriages to couples who are no longer fertile, and the fact that science can and does allow homosexual couples to procreate through various means, it absolutely falls apart as any sort of rational justification.
That is not a gotcha – it is fact.
First off, science does not allow procreation with parents of the same sex.
Second, as a general rule, no, proven fertility is not a pre-requisite to marriage, it is an assumption. Something that is simply not physically possible with gay couples. If your faith is strong you can really believe they are equal, but they are not.
Third, there is also this presumption of paternity in traditional marriage. If you do not recognize that, then proof otherwise is required. Again, not physically possible with gay couples. These forms of marriage are not equal if presumption of paternity for traditional couples is allowed to stand – there must be genetic tests. If your faith is strong you can really believe they are equal, but they are not.
Forth, but not finally, (premature) infertility, inability to procreate with ones spouse, is considered a medical problem in traditional marriage and cures are actively sought. Not so much with gay couples, which would simply require finding a cure… No? Not gonna happen, will it. But, if your faith is strong…
Get it straight (no pun intended), it is supporters of gay marriage (SCOTUS) who are forcing their irrational beliefs (aka religion) on others.
September 4th, 2015 at 1:24 am
Right now it requires surrogates, but it’s possible. They’re also working on making it possible for the genetic material from the egg of one woman to fertilize the egg of another woman (it’s already been demonstrated in mice), as well as make “eggs” using male sperm.
How is simply allowing gay couples to get married forcing someone’s belief on others? This is the “not taking is giving” method of argument that liberals use to say that tax breaks are subsidies. You have to start from your conclusion and work backwards to your premise in order to get a premise that fucking irrational.
September 4th, 2015 at 8:26 am
Even though I think counter-social degenerate pervert sodomites should be sent to gulags, I just don’t see God in a government-issued marriage license. That’s pure Caesar. This lady, I think, is diluting First Amendment freedoms with her frivolous arguments more than strengthening them.
September 4th, 2015 at 5:16 pm
How is simply allowing gay couples to get married forcing someone’s belief on others?
YMMV – certain ‘benefits’ of marriage include not just tax breaks, but taking other people’s money and putting into non-working spouses pockets in the form of survivor’s benefits. So, yes this bizarre belief system is imposing on others in the form of taxes (unless gay couples are exempt from receiving social / monetary benefits as a result of being ‘married’.
September 4th, 2015 at 7:31 pm
Sounds to me like your problem is with “survivor’s benefits”, not gay marriage. Go lobby to get those ended, and it won’t be a problem.
September 4th, 2015 at 8:36 pm
What happened was society thought marriage was something valuable, so it attached fringe benefits to it. As it becomes cheapened, those fringe benefits will become fewer and smaller.
September 5th, 2015 at 11:02 am
Rob, Look you goal post moving disingenuous anti-marriage scumbag, you gone full circle back to marriage doesn’t mean a damn thing but two names on a piece of paper.
You are also proving that the common opinion that militant homosexuals, homephiles, other assorted degenerates, were really out to destroy traditional marriage.