It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
But a special session will cost the taxpayers a LOT of money! This is a poor state and this one woman is bleeding them out. All these lawsuits and court hearings, etc. aren't free.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: greencmp
I am speaking about the bigger picture, that we apparently have convinced ourselves that we require permits to cohabitate.
I don't know of anyone who actually thinks we need a government permit to live together. But society DOES generally believe that you "grow up and get married". Married meaning the legal union.
I don't have any thought on overturning the 16th as regards this case. I understand you're looking at a much bigger picture, though.
originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: DeepImpactX
She was a registered Democrat that found religion a few years ago..born again baby!
Hard to say what the folks voted for back then.
I would guess her mother was a Democrat to but I have no proof just a guess.
originally posted by: DeepImpactX
Her and her mother have held that office for close to 50 years total. That tells me that her and her mother share the same beliefs as the people in that county who keep voting her in with each and every cycle.
After her mother announced she would not run for re-election in 2014, Davis filed as a Democratic candidate for county clerk.[13][13] At a candidates' forum, Davis stated she felt she was best qualified for the position because of her 26 years of experience in the clerk's office.[14]
Davis won the Democratic primary,[13] advancing to the general election against Republican John Cox.[15] Although Cox made complaints of nepotism during the campaign, Davis prevailed in the general election.[16] After winning the race, Davis told the Morehead News, "My words can never express the appreciation but I promise to each and every one that I will be the very best working clerk that I can be and will be a good steward of their tax dollars and follow the statutes of this office to the letter."[15][17][1]
It's not just Kim Davis who is the backward hick. Look at those who vote her in. If this is the way they want to live..........It's America.
America is a very diverse country and we have the freedom to pick and choose which area we want to live in that best suits our own personal way of life.
True, Kim Davis needs to crawl in a hole somewhere and go with a whimper, but until she does, ignore her.
I do, too. If this is allowed to continue, other clerks employed by the government will take it as a signal that they can bring their personal beliefs in to work, to judge who should and shouldn't be allowed to marry... or have a dog... or get a driver's license...
“There are good reasons to try to allow people who have been in these jobs for a long time to be able to keep their jobs,” Wilson says. “That’s a really noble thing to do in our culture, especially at a time of deep division.”
But a group of Columbia University law professors argue in a recent memo that these kinds of exemptions create “conscience creep,” in which government employees can refuse to provide more and more services that violate their beliefs. And what happens when no one wants to provide the service? “The exemption proposals would make the efficacy of same-sex couples’ constitutional right to marry contingent upon their being able to find a public official who has no objection to their having such a right,” they write.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Honestly I hope the governor does move on this. Whether to get rid of her entirely or to reshape the legislation.
But a special session will cost the taxpayers a LOT of money! This is a poor state and this one woman is bleeding them out. All these lawsuits and court hearings, etc. aren't free.
originally posted by: Flatfish
I think that what the SCOTUS decision did was to basically "strike down" or nullify their existing marriage amendment on the basis that it was "unconstitutional." So, if their marriage amendment has been nullified, same-sex marriage should already be legal.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
originally posted by: Flatfish
I think that what the SCOTUS decision did was to basically "strike down" or nullify their existing marriage amendment on the basis that it was "unconstitutional." So, if their marriage amendment has been nullified, same-sex marriage should already be legal.
I live in a poor state and I would HATE to have my taxes going toward this situation. But I do see your point. I just have sympathy for the state and the people who feel differently from the majority. I'm not much for majority rule.
originally posted by: Flatfish
We currently have one party in Congress who has basically refused to do their jobs since January of 2009 by adopting a policy of obstructionism, which is fundamentally the same thing Kim Davis has been doing every since the SCOTUS ruling came down, just on a smaller scale.
originally posted by: xuenchen
originally posted by: Flatfish
We currently have one party in Congress who has basically refused to do their jobs since January of 2009 by adopting a policy of obstructionism, which is fundamentally the same thing Kim Davis has been doing every since the SCOTUS ruling came down, just on a smaller scale.
I agree the most Congressional damage occurred in 2009 and 2010.
originally posted by: Willtell
If they get married and those marriages turn out not to be illegal (I’m not a lawyer but) this might cause legal hassles for the people who have gotten those licenses if their marriages are voided in the future.
That what’s she’s doing trying to create havoc in those peoples lives just to get back at them.
That what’s she’s doing trying to create havoc in those peoples lives just to get back at them.