Kentucky: Oath Keepers Say They Will Protect Kim Davis From The Law

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

So you really believe that a liberal called Rush Limbaugh to state that she and her lesbian friends were bent upon destroying the youth. You know, cuz reasons?

Or is it more logical to believe that one of Rush's right wing listeners did a bit of roleplaying?

Clue: The second option makes a Hell of a lot more sense than the first.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I find it interesting that you chose to ignore my posts and questions.

I said that Gandhi was a hero for breaking an unjust British colonialist law and is lionized for it.

Yep already replied and answered. Not even close to be comparable to Kim Davis' position.

Update to thread:

Rowan County Judge Executive Walter Blevins confirmed the Oath Keepers are already in Morehead.

"I think my sheriff is ready to handle the situation, but in a civilized and mannerly way," Blevins said.

Late Friday, the group posted on its website that Davis' lawyers declined its offer to protect her from the Marshals, and called on its "security volunteers" to stand down.

Since Bunning first ordered Davis to issue the marriage licenses, the clerk and her attorneys have made several attempts to legally get around it. One of their strategies was to ask Bunning to stop Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear and Library and Archives Commissioner Wayne Onkst from directing Davis to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Bunning denied that request on Friday.

Source

originally posted by: JohnFisher
That's how it was played off anyway. Everybody had the same right to marry. It just wasn't who they wanted to marry.

Then how is it the same? Straight people had the right to CHOOSE the person and marry the person they CHOSE. Gay people didn't have that right. Now, they do.

By the way, gay people have ALWAYS had the same right, according to the Constitution. States were just denying them their right until the Supreme Court ruling.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Wait wait wait.. so sh e denied two STRAIGHT COUPLES too? SO how is this DISCRIMINATION?

It's not discrimination. She was ordered to issue marriage licenses to all who legally qualified and she disobeyed the legal order.

originally posted by: luthier
The christians who support things like this are too small thinking to see that is what happens when you legislate this crap. It means I can say I worship satan get the church recognized by having good lawyers and start pushing my beliefs in public and at work.

I don't know if you were aware, but the Kentucky governor actually foresaw this problem and vetoed the Kentucky RFRA, but the legislature overrode the veto.

KY Legislature Overrides Veto on Religious Freedom

Those who opposed the measure said they are concerned that House Bill 279 would allow someone with a "sincerely held" religious belief to discriminate against others. Lexington, Louisville,
...
Beshear said the bill was too vaguely worded and could result in costly and protracted lawsuits for county, city and state governments. More than 50 groups, including the Kentucky Association of Counties, the Kentucky League of Cities and the Kentucky Education Association, had contacted him in opposition to HB 279.

Pretty good foresight.

a reply to: Hefficide

So glad Davis' lawyers were smart enough to decline the services offered by the Oath Keepers! I was very concerned about violence taking place.

Also glad that Bunning denied the request to stop the governor's direction to Davis. Seems the Liberty Council is going to take this all the way, exhaust every appeal, and burden the state with as much red tape and legal mumbo jumbo as they possibly can. IN the end, they will lose. Davis MAY get an accommodation, but I doubt it at this point. She will either go back to jail or stop interfering in the issuance of licenses. That is, until January, when she will likely be impeached.

I wonder if she even knows how much she's costing the state of Kentucky...

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Then how is it the same? Straight people had the right to CHOOSE the person and marry the person they CHOSE. Gay people didn't have that right. Now, they do.

You mean I have the right to marry a upermodel, even if she says No?!?!? Awesome!

By the way, gay people have ALWAYS had the same right, according to the Constitution. States were just denying them their right until the Supreme Court ruling.

According to the SCOTUS, not the Constitution. Marriage has never been in the Constitution. But I understand the confusion, seeing as we live in an entitlement ADHD popular culture society right now.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

I wonder if she even knows how much she's costing the state of Kentucky...

In my opinion she is probably currently incapable of engaging on that level. I imagine that she is in a bubble that most of us wouldn't even begin to understand. She's got at least two Presidential candidates blowing smoke up her skirt - legal representation that is more than eager to let her crash and burn to help further their cause and a lot of evangelicals and bigots spurring her on with moral support.

Put in that position it would be hard not to see oneself as a hero of the people and, once that happens, thoughts about consequences or costs fall by the wayside.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Then how is it the same? Straight people had the right to CHOOSE the person and marry the person they CHOSE. Gay people didn't have that right. Now, they do.

You mean I have the right to marry a upermodel, even if she says No?!?!? Awesome!

By the way, gay people have ALWAYS had the same right, according to the Constitution. States were just denying them their right until the Supreme Court ruling.

According to the SCOTUS, not the Constitution. Marriage has never been in the Constitution. But I understand the confusion, seeing as we live in an entitlement ADHD popular culture society right now.

Alot of people are confused including yourself. The state is giving tax, end of life, and estate contracts to only strait people. Scotus ruled that is unconstitutional and against the 14th. Seems pretty clear cut.

it's like they are so focused on one tiny issue that they can't see just how the tentacles of what they want to do would branch out in so many different directions that sooner or later, one of their tentacles coming back and biting them is a pretty sure thing really. when we raise the issues like the amish dmv, or the teacher who doesn't want to give the same quality of education to their girls in his class as the boys, it's like they think it will somehow just be contained in this issue, or the birth control issue, but it can't be.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
You mean I have the right to marry a upermodel, even if she says No?!?!? Awesome!

Of course the adults must be consenting...

According to the SCOTUS, not the Constitution.

No, according to the Constitution. The 14th amendment. The state's BANS were unconstitutional.

You're right that marriage has never been in the Constitution, but it DOES say that states cannot make laws that deny equal protection under the law.

originally posted by: dawnstar
it's like they are so focused on one tiny issue that they can't see just how the tentacles of what they want to do would branch out in so many different directions that sooner or later, one of their tentacles coming back and biting them is a pretty sure thing really. when we raise the issues like the amish dmv, or the teacher who doesn't want to give the same quality of education to their girls in his class as the boys, it's like they think it will somehow just be contained in this issue, or the birth control issue, but it can't be.

Right look at some of the new public satan statues. Hopefully more people do this stuff to show how moronic the rfra is.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

You mean I have the right to marry a upermodel, even if she says No?!?!? Awesome!

You're the second person, that I've seen, to make this argument? What is it with you people and your obsession with forcing other people to do what you want them to? Where in heck do you get the idea that Marriage Equality means "Slavery"?

There's some real cognitive dissidence going on in these threads!

a reply to: windword

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Teikiatsu

You mean I have the right to marry a upermodel, even if she says No?!?!? Awesome!

You're the second person, that I've seen, to make this argument? What is it with you people and your obsession with forcing other people to do what you want them to? Where in heck do you get the idea that Marriage Equality means "Slavery"?

There's some real cognitive dissidence going on in these threads!

I'm pointing out the absurd with absurdity. See also, sarcasm.

There is no such thing as the 'right to marriage'. A right is intrinsic to one person, not a group of people. A right does not require a bureaucracy. A license contract requires consent of two people and some type of official to validate. Ergo, no one has a right to what is more appropriately a civil privilege.

Also, it's 'dissidence' != 'dissonance'

"What is it with you people and your obsession with forcing other people to do what you want them to? "

Talk to Kim Davis about that one...

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: windword

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Teikiatsu

You mean I have the right to marry a upermodel, even if she says No?!?!? Awesome!

You're the second person, that I've seen, to make this argument? What is it with you people and your obsession with forcing other people to do what you want them to? Where in heck do you get the idea that Marriage Equality means "Slavery"?

There's some real cognitive dissidence going on in these threads!

I'm pointing out the absurd with absurdity. See also, sarcasm.

There is no such thing as the 'right to marriage'. A right is intrinsic to one person, not a group of people. A right does not require a bureaucracy. A license contract requires consent of two people and some type of official to validate. Ergo, no one has a right to what is more appropriately a civil privilege.

Also, it's 'dissidence' != 'dissonance'

"What is it with you people and your obsession with forcing other people to do what you want them to? "

Talk to Kim Davis about that one...

Dont be petty. The gov was with holding contracts from people. The constitution says you cant do that. Do you get it?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

There is such a thing as civil rights. The right to equal protection under the law is a civil right.

If you don't believe that, then you are okay with the government telling you that they don't approve who you married, therefore the license you have, and all its legal benefits are now null and void, but they like who your next door neighbor married, so they get to keep their marriage license.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

No, it's cognitive dissonance.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Teikiatsu

No, it's cognitive dissonance.

Hehe. I just relied on my spell checker. Didn't dictionary check it!

I could edit and fix my post, but I think I'll keep it for posterity! LOL

a reply to: windword

I didn't mean for that to seem so snarky! The allergy medication I've had to take the past couple of days is not doing me any favors. Apologies.