I hadn’t really looked deeply into the whole circus surrounding l’affaire Davis until recently because it smacked of all the Leftist caricatures of white, rural Christians brought to life.
One of the last groups of people others are free to mock and hate.
But a few thoughts come to mind after a bit of reading, and some debates on not-always-social social media.
First off is the oft repeated assertion that as a Public Employee she cannot discriminate against the public. And people saying that are right, but only to a point. Her department cannot discriminate. As long as the public is adequately, legally and equally served, then it does not matter who the individual is that is serving the public.
A public employee doesn’t give up their First Amendment rights when they accept public employment.
No matter the statutory relief available, under RFRA, ADA, FMLA or others, a public employee has the same rights to petition for accommodation as a private employee. The employer has an obligation to grant an accommodation as long as it doesn’t present an undue burden on the employer.
I speak from the personal experience as both a government employee and a supervisor. I’ve been in the position of granting (or denying) accommodations for years. They are, necessarily, a case-by-case basis. For instance, when I worked at a 24/7 facility and part of my job was to oversee scheduling, we took into account the requests from 7th day Adventist and Jewish employees not to be scheduled to work sunset-to-sunset Friday to Saturday. Most of the time it was an easy accommodation.
Obviously, the public was still being served, just that these specific individuals were absent during these specific hours; their duties covered by other employees.
Let’s leave aside for a moment that the same-sex couple in the Davis case specifically targeted Rowan County in yet another instance of Alinsky’s Rule #13, what does Kim Davis really want?
From her own SCOTUS petition, pages 39-40.
No one has demonstrated that Kentucky “lacks other means” of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples “without imposing a substantial burden” on Davis’ “exercise of religion.” Id. Not only that, the least-restrictive-means test may “require the Government to expend additional funds” to accommodate “religious beliefs,” id. at 2781. In this matter, even if the “desired goal” is providing Plaintiffs with Kentucky marriage licenses in Rowan County 19, see id., numerous less restrictive means are available to accomplish it without substantially burdening Davis’ religious freedom and conscience, such as:
*Providing an opt-out or exemption to the Kentucky marriage licensing scheme (as exists for the Kentucky fish and wildlife licensing scheme), KY.REV.STAT. § 150.195, and as other states, such as North Carolina, have enacted, see, e.g., N.C.GEN.STAT. § 51-5.5(permitting recusal of officials from “issuing” lawful marriage licenses “based upon any sincerely held religious objection”);
*Deputizing a neighboring county clerk (or some other person) to issue Kentucky marriage licenses in Rowan County;
*Modifying the prescribed Kentucky marriage license form to remove the multiple references to Davis’ name, and thus to remove the personal nature of the authorization that Davis must provide on the current form;
*Deeming Davis “absent” for purposes of issuing SSM licenses, based upon her moral and religious inability to issue them, and allowing those licenses to be issued by the chief executive of Rowan County, as specifically authorized by Kentucky law, see KY.REV.STAT. § 402.240;
*Distributing Kentucky marriage licenses at the state-level through an online or other state-wide licensing scheme; or
*Legislatively addressing Kentucky’s entire marriage licensing scheme post-Obergefell, 20 whether immediately by calling a special legislative session or in
three months in the next regular legislative session.All of the foregoing options, and others, are available to avoid substantially burdening Davis’ personal religious freedom in the wake of the redefinition of marriage in Obergefell.
There are other reports in the media that would indicate that Davis is not a sincere contentious objector but is using her position as clerk to nullify the law and garner media attention.
Davis is definitely entitled to an accommodation, she is not entitled to try and nullify the law as it stands post-Obergefell.
Notwithstanding the Leftist politicians, from Obama to San Fran Mayor Newsom, who engage in picking & choosing what laws they’ll nullify or enforce with no consequence, Davis is obligated to make sure the public in Rowan county is legally served.
If she wishes to change the law, she needs to resign and work towards that end.
While Kim Davis is not a sympathetic figure (divorced 3 times and, bless her heart, she looks strikingly like SWMNBN), she is NOT a government employee, but an elected official. The law is clear, unfortunately, but she is backed by centuries of religious mandate: Jewish, Muslim, Catholic (pre-Pope Francis of Apostate) and evangelical Christian.
I enjoy seeing a stick shived in Teh Ghey’s cream-filled wedding donuts, really.
granted, serr8d, she’s an elected official … but her own SCOTUS brief is asking for exactly the accommodations she’d be considered for as an employee.
So I’m wondering WTH she wants?
IMHO Newsom, Moonbeam Brown and others should have been jailed on contempt to defying the law & their oaths of office – but the fact that it didn’t happen to them give license to Davis.
she being an elected state official would be better served by the 10th amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
do a ctr – f for marriage in the us constitution. i like to see the scotus wrangle with that angle.
It’s unclear why a deputy cannot sign a license. Is she refusing to allow her office to issue such licenses? If so, she has a problem. However, it’s also unclear why this a federal matter. It would seem that the proper remedy is for a state court to issue a writ of mandamus compelling her to sign, or more precisely, for the office of the county clerk to issue the license. If her office continues to refuse, then there are remedies to remove her from office for failing to discharge her duties. I’m sympathetic with her position, but from her perspective, she should resign.
Shermlaw
The facts & timeline of things is really unclear. I have no idea why it ended up in front of the feds or why KY hasn’t jumped to an RFRA accommodation.
Just weird all around.
“However, it’s also unclear why this a federal matter. ”
it is not that’s why a 10 amendment defense is the more winning constitutional argument for an elected state official. new legal grounds that the proggtards will have to convolute to continue their journey to proggtardia. ms davis should do a big 10 amend eff u to scotus.
It’s a shame that we’re seeing *most* of the so-called “good guys” give in to Gay Marriage without even a whimper. I’m happy to hear of any push-back, no matter how futile it turns out to be.
To Hell and beyond with these culture assassins.
Arm yourselves, figuratively speaking, and take ’em on.
serr8d
I fully support people who opt out of participating or supporting same sex marriage. But an elected official or government employee has to allow the public to be served, even as they themselves opt out.
>But an elected official or government employee has to allow the public to be served, even as they themselves opt out. <
so the us constitution means whatever 9 clowns rule? eff dat
"10th Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
effin marriage ain’t in the us constitution.
abortion ain’t in the us constitution
I agree with you newrouter
so .. http://www.conventionofstates.com/
pw being cucksuck into the salem borg
I really don’t know what I think. Other than standing up for the rule of law seems increaingly to be a game for suckers and rubes.
“I agree with you newrouter”
not really. the “convention of the states” is failure theatre. if you wanted to to sumthing effective you’d do 1)take the power of raising the us debt limit from ,about 218+ 60+1 peeps and give it to 3/4 state legislatures and 2)term limits on all fed employees. if levin was serious he be :
Deactivation of Hal 9000
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8N72t7aScY
http://www.conventionofstates.com/
nice site do they have an agenda for 2018 local/state elections or are they part of the “ruining class” looking for sumthing to do and make money?
I don’t know about 1) but it would take a constitutional amendment for 2) –if we’re going to include office holders as federal employees (and we damn well should) It would also take a Constitutional amendment to proscribe the rights of federal employees. I’d like to do something about their political activism and hiding behind the 5th.
Local news repeated a national story about a rally for Kim Davis. Mentioned was the fact that one of Davis’s deputy clerks did issue the gay couple the license they sought. So yeah, it’s confusing as to what it is Davis is trying to accomplish here. Obviously it’s more than a personal exemption.
Or maybe not. Maybe the judge in this case has his own hang-ups about religion. You know the type –they only have religion in the bedroom. With the curtains drawn and the lights turned off.
“Darleen says September 5, 2015 at 8:49 pm
I agree with you newrouter
so .. http://www.conventionofstates.com/
Darleen,
the rube goldberg machine that is the fed gov’t needs to be dismantled. as in 2001 clip , you remove certain objects so that the “machine” dies. the federal debt limit is where the fed. gov’t dies. the cos is failure theatre unless they do this. a “balanced budget amendment” says so.
“I don’t know about 1) but it would take a constitutional amendment for 2) ”
being a an art v convention of the states, yea amendments to the us constitution are on the table
kim davis is more “failure theatre” you stupid rubes. the “ruining class” – failure theatre for the “masses”
mitch and mr. orangeguy are “failure theatre” stars. see the corker trailer.
to pw:
this a classic 10 Amend case,elected state official no federal gov’t authority per the us constitution, mr g. why don’t you have some fun?
When Islamsists start persecuting liberals in the USA, we’ll know that the liberals have won.
When liberals convert to Islam to evade persecution, we’ll know Islamists have won.
I heart it when mister n gets a bee in his bustle!
“I fully support people who opt out of participating or supporting same sex marriage. But an elected official or government employee has to allow the public to be served, even as they themselves opt out.”
No you don’t, hence this post. Are you down with the Federal incarceration of all public employees that ignore their responsibilities? Because I have a list.
“Davis’s deputy clerks did issue the gay couple the license they sought.”
Sans her signature, not legal, some say. And not for nothing, they are homosexual couples, although some maybe “gay”, most are not.
Ultimately, you get what you accept.
[…] Darleen Click on Protein Wisdom: Kim Davis: standing for First Amendment rights or just an attention seeking politician? […]
Volokh has a good rundown of what she wants and what are her rights even as an elected official.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/
yeah i don’t get it either
if you take her word from her filings she’s asking for the state to create a marriage license she doesn’t have to sign for so she can oversee the dispensation of licenses to gay and straight people and Jesus won’t be mad at her
seriously?
seriously kooky
my feel is at the end of the day she wants that piggy pension what comes with the job and this is a good way to get re-elected in that county
I blame her pastor.
Greetings:
I just think that it’s a shame that Ms. DAvis didn’t take advantage of the recently concluded Rama-lama-ding-dan to make her Sha-na-na-ha-da and become a Muslimaniac. Now that would have been a good bit of fun.
well griefer I see you’ve again appointed yourself the arbitrator of what constitutes legitimate religious beliefs.
What say you about Quakers serving in the military but being excused from combat roles?
seriously kooky, right?
you’re welcome i’m spread thin these days but I still try and do me bit
serving in the military is a real thing
poor deluded Kim Davis builds her entire case on the like that issuing marriage licenses to gay people is tantamount to a religious statement
nope
all issuing that license means is that there’s no legal bar in kentucky to these people getting married
done and done
intentionalism is a bitch
but the intent of that license is clear clear clear as her seventh husband’s moonshine
builds her entire case on the *lie* i mean
all issuing that license means is that there’s no legal bar in kentucky to these people getting married –
Gospel according to Griefer – none may question.
moron
AGain, griefer, YOU DO NOT GET to define what religious doctrine is for this woman.
No more than you’d get to define what is a legitimate physical limitation under ADA or FMLA.
the ONLY issue is if her religious beliefs can be accommodated under RFRA as per her own legal brief which I linked.
AGain, griefer, YOU DO NOT GET to define what religious doctrine is for this woman. –
nope but she’s the head of the office in charge of giving gay people wedding licenses and I do get to say that poochie creamcheese here needs to get with the program
she should resign
this idea that she’s super ok with giving out gay marriage licenses as long as they don;t have her name on them is straining at a gnat (that’s a Bible-ism)
*don’t* have her name on them i mean
griefer
It’s the difference between selling cupcakes from the case for every customer that comes in
and doing custom work to support and event you disagree with
Whether it is for a same-sex ceremony or a Klan rally.
So. Can we force the Catholic pharmacist to dispense RU-486 if he’s the only pharmacist in town? Can we force the Mormon doctor to perform an abortion if he’s the only surgeon at the regional hospital? Who else needs to get with the program?
i don’t think that’s a good analogy at all
the process that Kim is involved in has nothing to do with supporting an event
her signature on the licenses only attests that the couple in question meet the legal requirements in the state of Kentucky for to be married
it doesn’t say she agrees with it
i do not think this woman has the emotional maturity to do this job if you ask me
her signature on the licenses only attests that the couple in question meet the legal requirements in the state of Kentucky for to be married
And her personal religious beliefs deems that support since she believes: 1)marriage is a sacred institution 2)of one man and one woman
I personally would not sign a marriage license for a polygamous wedding or a brother-brother wedding — it implies my cooperation and endorsement.
But I guess I’m all hatey that way.
Can any healthcare professional, either employed by government (e.g. a county hospital) or who has patients on Medicare/ObamaCare, refuse to participate in abortion? sterilization?
If so, then Davis is entitled to same accommodation under RFRA.
The gay couple who sought her out, with media in tow, may be entitled to A license, they are NOT entitled to a license with a particular person’s signature/endorsement.
all her signature means is that a couple has legal standing to be married
poliggers and incest brothers would not meet that test
and Darleen them gay people in kentucky what pay the taxes what pay poochie creamcheese’s exorbitant salary
they’re entitled to the same government services everyone else gets
that’s why poochie languishes in jail not unlike how mandela did
me personally i’m a not play sun city til she’s free
but I am but one pikachu
poliggers and incest brothers don’t meet that test yet
is i think what you meant to say
seeing as they’re entitled to the same government services evryone else gets
yeah I dunno
i give you this
somebody needs to keep an eye on them winklevoss boys
Question for the legally minded:
Does there now exist, thanks to Obergefell a de facto religious test for public office?
no Mr. S cause of there are scores and scores of good christian clerks in kentucky what aren’t going all special snowflake like poochie creamcheese
i salute them ones
god love em they’re what keeps this country together
meanwhile:
>(Via Muslim Issue) 4 millions Muslims pretend to escape 30,000 ISIS fighters who are not even near their towns, cities and even countries. This kind of mass-migration fraud is a medieval war strategy and it’s called Hijrah. It’s part of jihad.
Ok, so let’s follow the absurd and deeply misused asylum and refugee policy and pretend that they are victims of war and need to escape. Very easy to resolve. Pressure the 49 Islamic countries around the world to take them all in. Block them from all and total entry into the West. If the Islamic countries don’t take them in – put trade sanctions on them. Watch and see how quickly this mass-migration flood will come to an end when the Muslims realize that they can’t get their Hijrah to work!
Abdullah Kurdi’s story is made-up. But his lies are now being used and rewarded by the media in full blown propaganda, while pressuring policies to force Europe to take in more economic migrants who have never experienced a war zone. The dead toddler pornography is a dream-come true PR campaign serving ISIS and their overwhelming Muslim supporters.
Abdullah was never on that boat to watch his wife and children drown. That’s why he was the only survivor. The first time he learned of their death was from the hospital after the photos of his young son was circulating in the media. Listen to all the contradictions and holes in his story.
This was an attempt to send his wife and children into Europe before his own arrival to apply for refugee status as a lone woman with children, while they never even lived in a war zone. Unfold the #migrationfraud<
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/09/06/what-do-bob-geldorf-samantha-power-joseph-kony-jeh-johnson-and-charles-rivkin-have-in-common/#more-105767
defend the 10th amendment: free kim davis!!11!!
free kim davis!!11!!
eventually
no rush
to every thing there is a season yada yada
her husband looks like he hasn’t felt this good in years
>her husband looks like he hasn’t felt this good in years free kim davis !!11!!
>her husband looks like he hasn’t felt this good in years free kim davis !!11!!
“her husband looks like he hasn’t felt this good in years”
which husband she’s been divorced 2 or 3 times. viva kim davis celebrate the 9th & 10th amendments!
you’re the funniest armadillo in the whole whirl i love you
meanwhile
PETER HITCHENS: We won’t save refugees by destroying our own country
Pope Francis took care of that already.
Top down, it seems. Just like ‘Merica!
License = permission, Griefer. Look it up.
the Catholic Church’s biggest problem is that freaky third whirl piece of shit fascist global warmer pope weirdo
which, this is mostly an internal thing
him being “pope” and all
no Mr. S cause of there are scores and scores of good christian clerks in kentucky what aren’t going all special snowflake like poochie creamcheese
Which would suggest that there is in fact a de facto religious test against the bad christians who refuse to call evil good.
well, c’mon
bad christians is no good
everyone knows that
the good ones though everyone love those ones
teh Cruz has spoken!
that was like 2 days ago
Here’s the thing about happyfeet, he doesn’t mind tyranny when it works for HIS interests. It’s who he is. It’s what he does.
I figured that back when the second California vote to uphold traditional marriage was overturned by a fag in black.
I heard the other day, anarchy is the absence of laws, tyranny is the selective enforcement of laws. How can anyone deny this is a a case of tyranny, designed to be an example, when so many worse offenses by much more powerful people are free?
This ain’t America any more.
Hillary should be in prison for her email scam.
Unfortunately, probably every elected official in DC did the same thing.
By the way, what is the “law” regarding garriage?
I don’t recall any so called “law” coming out of congress and being signed by the president as the constitution defines law. Oh, wait. That would be the Defence of Marriage Act, signed by president Clinton and blatantly ignored by Obama.
This is the tell, as with Roe v. Wade. It means the Feds are unconstitutionally exercising authority that rightfully belongs to the states.
“that was like 2 days ago”
So, he’s ahead of the curve then. Climb on board the Cruz missile!
As I’ve been saying on Twitter, I’ll insist that she step down or whatever as soon as everyone who outranks her in this country is sanctioned.
If punishing gubmint officials for not doing their job is the point of the exercise, we’re doing it wrong.
You don’t start with county clerks; you start at the top.
Bastiat, The Law:
‘feets is a Moby. One of the unfunny ones.
“builds her entire case on the *lie* i mean”
Because you call fire water, then bathe in it; doesn’t mean it won’t still burn your ass.
Do you now want to have that honest discussion about the “Lie” that is homosexuality? Where it starts? Who starts it? Why they do it? Who they do it to? What they do? What other behavior is a direct result of the false ideation?
” ‘feets is a Moby. One of the unfunny ones.”
Much worse than that. Google “Judas Goat”. He is also compiling his list.
That “good Christian” they refer to is one who can be manipulated into betraying their conscience’s. You either have the strength of your convictions, or you don’t.
griefer is a Christophobe who believes his hatred and fear of Christians also imparts the right to define what is legitimate doctrine for all Christianity … never mind the doctrinal differences between denominations.
you make stuff up girlfriend
Ready for that conversation yellow lemming? I know you say you are down with the cause, now here’s you chance to show your support. Tell us honestly why homosexuality is a net positive for society.
griefer
You have spent this thread doing nothing but acting like Obama dictating what particular religious practice is, is not, “authentic”, and making ad homimen cracks about Davis.
You’ve clearly here, as in other things, shown your animus towards any claim of Christianity that doesn’t comport with your own definition.
When I’m going about the business of granting or denying accommodations at my work, I cannot — I CANNOT — question the sincerity or motives of the person asking for it. I must deal only with the facts at hand and whether the accommodation puts an undue burden on my department.
Sit on that and spin.
“You don’t start with county clerks; you start at the top(of state gov’t)”
–
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.-
kim davis 10th amendment warrior!!11!!
roe v wade is a classic 10th right but the “cuckservatives” went for the “life” banner. now with pervert marriage the “cuckservatives” go for the “religious liberty” banner. yo clowns if ain’t in the constitution the 9 a holes of scotus don’t decide. so start effing ignoring them. gotta start throwing punches back twice as hard/instadude
whether kim davis should have “religous liberty” here is missing the essential constitutional question: does any part of the fed gov’t have constitutional grounds to decide what “marriage ” is or “abortion” or “disparate impact”. the 2nd amendment is ok let’s fortify the 10th.
As I wrote over at my site a few days ago:
It would seem, from reading the excerpt of her Petition to the SCOTUS, that her lawyer has given her bad strategic advice and, obviously, she decided to take it.
Darleen wrote: Davis is definitely entitled to an accommodation, she is not entitled to try and nullify the law as it stands post-Obergefell.
The issue of Accommodation is not important in this case.
Oberegfell is not Law. Further, if that decision was eventually codified as a Law, it would be an un-Constitutional one because it violates the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Elected Officials of the Several States have every right [and a Moral Duty] to refuse to comply with such Laws because they violate and undermine the Constitutional Order, the Separation Of Powers, and The Founding.
Oh!…and…
Resistentiam Tyrannis nunc.
Resistentiam Tyrannis saecula.
PROSCRIPTUS!
Resistance to Tyranny now.
Resistance to Tyranny forever.
OUTLAWS!
Public Image Ltd – Rise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN-GGeNPQEg
“}The profound difference between our system-in terms of the nature of power-and what we traditionally understand by dictatorship, a difference I hope is clear even from this quite superficial comparison, has caused me to search for some term appropriate for our system, purely for the purposes of this essay. If I refer to it henceforth as a “post-totalitarian” system, I am fully aware that this is perhaps not the most precise term, but I am unable to think of a better one. I do not wish to imply by the prefix “post” that the system is no longer totalitarian; on the contrary, I mean that it is totalitarian in a way fundamentally different from classical dictatorships, different from totalitarianism as we usually understand it. ”
http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/165havel.html
steely dan – the royal scam
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRjItDLnAwc
-5. Brothers and sisters, do not be afraid to welcome Christ and accept his power. Help the Pope and all those who wish to serve Christ and with Christ’s power to serve the human person and the whole of mankind. Do not be afraid. Open wide the doors for Christ. To his saving power open the boundaries of States, economic and political systems, the vast fields of culture, civilization and development. Do not be afraid. Christ knows “what is in man”. He alone knows it.
So often today man does not know what is within him, in the depths of his mind and heart. So often he is uncertain about the meaning of his life on this earth. He is assailed by doubt, a doubt which turns into despair. We ask you therefore, we beg you with humility and trust, let Christ speak to man. He alone has words of life, yes, of eternal life. –
https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/homilies/1978/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19781022_inizio-pontificato.html
Funny to hear criticism calling Christian dogmatic on these issues. That is kind of the idea innit?
You have spent this thread doing nothing but acting like Obama dictating what particular religious practice is, is not, “authentic”
nonono picklehead that is not true
i’m saying that nowhere on the license does it say that the clerk who administers it is endorsing gay marriage
it just means that the two people on the license meet the legal requirements
done and done
the intent of this document could not be more clear
this deceitful hooch is trolling you
she’s no different than the weirdo what wants to work at abercrombie wearing a pup tent
The license is a permission slip, griefer. Words mean things. license is a word.
but the license is for the people who are gonna marry the couple, not for the couple
duh reading hello
here’s the license they’re using up Rowan County way these days
do some intentionalism on that for me there bucko
(i’m saying that nowhere on the license does it say that the clerk who administers it is endorsing gay marriage )
trouble is your signature: “endorses” a check, a contract, a loan or a “pervert the marriage” license.
that is not a true thing what you say
poochie’s signature on a gay marriage license is no more an endorsement of that union than her signature on any other kind of marriage license
it’s tendentious to assert otherwise
(here’s the license they’re using up Rowan County way these days )
at the top the forms states “in accordance with laws of Kentucky”
might be a 10th Amendment thing not a havard/yale thing
“it’s tendentious to assert otherwise”
your effinning pov is “tendentious”. “pervert marriage” is , 1000’s of years of human society would suggest , “the perversion of the term: marriage”
States really should get out of the licensing part of the business and just register whatever witnessed marriage contract is brought to them.
“Y’all have my permission to marry these two homos to each other”
What part of that eludes you, griefer?
Gay marriages will always be clown shows, with meaningless actors pretending their marriage ceremonies matter. It’s almost sad seeing these strutting puffercocks mincing up and exchanging vows, then going home to play the family life, only with perfect cats and curtains in lieu of kids and respect.
Silly children with fiat government-granted paper permissions, the only marriages that matter are those smiled on by God.
States really should get out of the licensing part of the business and just register whatever witnessed marriage contract is brought to them.
You should see some of the weird-ass motions that get filed at my court.
Filing paperwork at the court =/= any kind of endorsement – it just means the court acknowledges receipt.
Make marriage a private affair again. Then people can accept or reject participating in any hoorah surrounding any person’s ceremony.
Also, decouple government bennies from marital status (as to not allow the polygamists to game the system)
e.g. you get to designate one adult beneficiary of your Soc Sec plus any minor children.
“Y’all have my permission to marry these two homos to each other”
no the license says you have the state of kentucky’s permission cause of you meet all the legal kentucky requirements
meeting all the
kentuckySCOTUS reinventionFTFY
75% of the state voted that natural marriage should remain so.
Natural marriage exists even as the farce of same-sex “marriage” goes on.
“no the license says you have the state of kentucky’s permission cause of you meet all the legal kentucky requirements ”
hi 10th amendment !!11!!
Hippyfart has graduated from mere willful mendacity to reporting events in an unseen parallel universe with different governing forces and physics and stuff. He’s not just playing devil’s advocate, spinning, or bullshitting he’s clairvoyantly prophesying unto us about the sights, sounds, and events coming to his mind from the other side of a dimensional barrier. Like maybe over there the Hindenburg hit an iceberg and the Titanic was a restaurant chain instead of a cruise ship.
What I want to know is where is this “law” defined? I mean, where can a person go to read the law to see what the actual “legal” definition of marriage entails exactly?
I’m also curious about what “legal” constitutional authority this new “law” draws from.
Seems to me this “law” and its per smothers need to be fleshed out a bit before demanding people obstacles the (fictional) letter
Dammit, lemme redo that last paragraph.
Seems to me this “law” and it’s perimeters need to be fleshed out a bit before demanding people obey the (fictional) letter of the “law”.
the law is that whether or not you can get a marriage license is not a function of the religious beliefs of the people who work in the office that administrates the licenses
“the law is that whether or not you can get a marriage license is not a function of the religious beliefs of the people who work in the office that administrates the licenses ”
You’re not even trying anymore, are you?
this one is easy peasy
Penfold, shush.
i’m in a lull cause i ordered panda
There’s no meat in this taco.
There would have been less of a problem if states took some time to write some legislation rather than getting caught up in the rainbow parade.
Darleen, I think you were kinda of agreeing with me on registration. I was just thinking to allow registration so if you end up in civil/family court you have some filed paperwork to rely on if needed. It would not have to be mandatory but, it could help.
You posted an example of a Kentucky license. Where does it say that? It says you can marry the people in accordance with to the laws of Kentucky, but it doesn’t say that Kentucky is authorizing you.
Unless that part got cut off or sumthin…
Gay Marriage and the 10th Amendment
no that wasn’t an example that’s the actual license the clerks are issuing in rowan county
You mean like with a cloth?
no
Deactivation of Hal 9000
“About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.”
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/speech-on-the-occasion-of-the-one-hundred-and-fiftieth-anniversary-of-the-declaration-of-independence/
Public Image Ltd – Rise
too funny if you see mcconel/ orangeman:
Public Image Ltd – (This is Not a) Love Song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BGi8u8BtaA
No, that’s not an answer to the question. Curious.