Clerk's office defies order; no same-sex marriage licenses

originally posted by: dawnstar
that may be a good reason to at least call the legislation into session and at least pass a few laws so that it can be legally done...

The 14th amendment invalidates Kentucky's discriminatory marriage law! There's no validity in claiming to follow the unconstitutional law. That's what the SC ruling was all about. It invalidated state laws' bans.

The court’s 5-4 opinion holds that state marriage bans violate the due process and equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

Source

Kentucky law isn't worth the paper it's printed on. It's INVALID.

As I said, these people will fight tooth and nail to discriminate...

originally posted by: mymymy
Religious bigotry will end when "Christians" stop cherry picking from the Bible.

Hopefully they stop asking this woman to resign and just fire her.

they can't fire her...only the state legislator can impeach her....and it's a republican legislator...so...do I need to say more??

The 14th amendment invalidates Kentucky's discriminatory marriage law! There's no validity in claiming to follow the unconstitutional law. That's what the SC ruling was all about. It invalidated state laws' bans.

Kentucky law isn't worth the paper it's printed on. It's INVALID.

As I said, these people will fight tooth and nail to discriminate...

Exactly!!!!!!!! The GOP senator gesture is nothing but that, he holds no power to force or stop the judge from enforcing the law.

Still giving special concessions to the Clerk and rule on it, is not going to happen because like you say, the reason the supreme court ruled on the same sex marriage was to avoid individual rulings by state on discrimination using religion.

What a shame, nothing but trying to get points from the religious right.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Gotta love all of the conflicting information she is being given by her "supporters".

Does Kim Davis, Kentucky Clerk Blocking Gay Marriages, Have Legal Grounds?

And the president of Kentucky's state senate, Republican Robert Stivers, urged the judge to hold off on any decision about contempt of court until the legislature meets next year to clarify state marriage law.

Until then, Davis "cannot be reasonably expected to determine her duties until such time as either the governor by executive order or the General Assembly by legislation provides guidance and clarification."

The heck? Why does Kentucky's GA have to clarify this? The Supreme Court already clarified this issue for him.

a reply to: dawnstar

An exempt law only works if there is another person who can perform the service.

Sending them to another district is not acceptable.

There are a lot of ""sneaky" laws working their way through the courts. They are trying to make discrimination legal.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I wonder if she is waiting to be terminated by the state in order to sue the state, this is just going to be really silly at the end when other states that are waiting to see the outcome of this, stance on gay marriage rights are to find out that they could not challenge the rulings anymore no matter what.

Can she sue for religious discrimination?

a reply to: Annee

the way the kentucky law is written now, as I understand it, maybe I am wrong, but the marriage license can only be done in the country that the bride to be lives, unless she is the one applying for it.
I don't think this law has anything to do with preventing gay marriage. kind of thinks it predates the debate over that. would be interesting to find out why their law was written like that though, and if it's still being enforced.

both me and my husband had to be present when we applied for the marriage license, so maybe the politician is calling up a law that isn't even enforced anymore, who knows.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Annee

the way the kentucky law is written now, as I understand it, maybe I am wrong, but the marriage license can only be done in the country that the bride to be lives, unless she is the one applying for it.

That stipulation would be invalidated by the Supreme Court's ruling, as a female isn't necessary for marriage. The Kentucky law means nothing until they can rewrite it so that it does not violate the Constitution.

judge found her in contempt of court and ordered her to jail till she complies...

www.usatoday.com...

What I've learned over the past several months:

1. Go against a controversial issue

2. Get someone to setup a crowdfunding page

3. Get media involved, the more inflammatory the better

4. Profit

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Kim Davis Jailed in Contempt of Court Finding

The judge didn't fine her because of the possibility of her getting the fines paid by supporters.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

She'll no doubt get book deals and speaking gigs out of this. She probably won't have to work ever again.

a reply to: dawnstar

Here is an article about the "Sneaky" laws these type people are trying to pass.

They are trying to create laws within the legal parameters --- that are "Sneakily" discriminatory against LGBT.

WATCH: A Field Guide for Identifying Sneaky, Homophobic Laws

Nice civil rights you've got there. Sure would be a shame if something happened to them.
BY MATT BAUMEMARCH 06 2015

While LGBT Americans are busy celebrating the spread of marriage equality, homophobic lawmakers have yet another trick up their sleeve. A new trend hitting legislatures across the country: sneaky laws that erode civil rights for LGBT citzens without ever actually mentioning LGBT people, or even same-sex marriage.

It's a clever strategic move, since it would be unconstitutional to call out gays and lesbians specifically in a law that revokes civil rights. So anti-equality politicians have figured out how to cleverly word new laws that still manage to target sexual orientation for discrimination. Some of these proposed new laws — like the one recently enacted in Arkansas — would make it against the law for towns to add new groups to nondiscrimination policies. Others follow Mississippi's lead, and would allow businesses and government employees to pick and choose which members of the public they'd serve. And some — like a bill passed last month in the North Carolina Senate — would even require public employees to discriminate against same-sex couples.

What's so sneaky about these laws is that they look perfectly reasonable, since they never actually mention who the target is — instead, they claim to protect "religious liberty" or "sincerely held religious beliefs."

www.advocate.com...

a reply to: Annee

and...
because they don't target any particular group, any group really, including the christian community can be targeted...
by carefully wording the policies of course!!!

a reply to: MystikMushroom

I sincerely doubt it will play out quite that way. Sure she'll get the book deal, speaking gigs and more than likely a made for TV movie that will likely ridicule her in the end. But the money machine will dry out after a while and she'll end up a cashier at the local Family Dollar.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Annee

and...
because they don't target any particular group, any group really, including the christian community can be targeted...
by carefully wording the policies of course!!!

Yes.

Some of them have actually backfired giving LGBT more freedom.

a reply to: Annee

No matter how they sugar coat the laws they are still discriminating laws as such the person or groups that feel they have been discriminated can challenge them in a court of law.

And that is what is going to happen I am sure that the states will be keeping a budget just for the challenges.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Annee

No matter how they sugar coat the laws they are still discriminating laws as such the person or groups that feel they have been discriminated can challenge them in a court of law.

And that is what is going to happen I am sure that the states will be keeping a budget just for the challenges.

Oh yeah. That's why LGBT activist say: "Don't sit on your laurels", we're not done yet.

There's a whole bunch of these "Sneaky" laws winding their way through the courts. And some not so sneaky.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

She'll no doubt get book deals and speaking gigs out of this. She probably won't have to work ever again.

I think the markets way down on this.

Even NOM has taken their fight over seas, because they've basically lost in America.

I think the majority of Christian churches now accept LGBT. It's pretty much just the Fundamental Baptists that are continuing this.

To people on both sides of this arguement:

If you are going to either adhere to the rule of law or flaunt it....... be consistent.

You can't be for this ruling yet give our Federal officials a free pass when they don't enforce current laws, Immigration Laws for example.


You can't be for the clerk disobeying a law and call out Federal officials for disobeying laws.


YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS People.

I can handle people disagreeing. I can't stomach Hippocrates.