Kentucky clerk refused have same sex marriages license!

Status
Not open for further replies.
AlleyCat said:
I hope so too. This was a far bigger deal than needed to be, and she made it that way.
Click to expand...

Not just her.
Everyone involved in my eyes where to stubborn to find an easy solution to this...both her laywers and the govs as well as the judge failed to see the easy solution,
Instead it came down to "you will obey or else", and her "jail me if you must"
Or what ever they thought....
The better solution was in my eyes right infront of everyone..
 
As far as I'm understanding here, the license were issued by a different clerk while Kim Davis is still in jail. Kim refused to give gay couple a marriage license per court order hence contempt of court. Since released from jail the other day, we know the question is will she comply when she gets back to work or not?

That is the only issue - refusing to give same sex couple a marriage license per court order that's it. Another way of contempt is... if a judge orders lawyers not to speak to the media but later on, a lawyer slips and spoke to a reporter. Judge finds out... he throws the lawyer in jail for contempt of court.

Contempt of court is easy definition here. If still misunderstand, let it go.

hoichi said:
Im not sure what the plm here in understanding eachother is
Sigh
Im going to go on a limb here. And ask a couple of simple questions to aid in an attempt at understanding
What was the fundimental issue in this case? Or more pointed why was she found in contempt? As in what was she refusing to do? And what was she doing?
Click to expand...
 
Calvin said:
As far as I'm understanding here, the license were issued by a different clerk while Kim Davis is still in jail. Kim refused to give gay couple a marriage license per court order hence contempt of court. Since released from jail the other day, we know the question is will she comply when she gets back to work or not?

That is the only issue - refusing to give same sex couple a marriage license per court order that's it. Another way of contempt is... if a judge orders lawyers not to speak to the media but later on, a lawyer slips and spoke to a reporter. Judge finds out... he throws the lawyer in jail for contempt of court.

Contempt of court is easy definition here. If still misunderstand, let it go.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
Its preety straight forward.
 
Since she has filed an appeal saying that the judges order only pertained to the licenses she refused to grant and has gone back to her old ways of refusing to grant new licenses to gay couples, so it's time that they put her in jail for a lot longer time and start the impeachment proceedings. This woman obviously doesn't get it that the law has to be followed and it's not up to her to only abide by the laws she agrees with and ignore the ones she doesn't, it's time for her to go!
 
seb said:
Since she has filed an appeal saying that the judges order only pertained to the licenses she refused to grant and has gone back to her old ways of refusing to grant new licenses to gay couples, so it's time that they put her in jail for a lot longer time and start the impeachment proceedings. This woman obviously doesn't get it that the law has to be followed and it's not up to her to only abide by the laws she agrees with and ignore the ones she doesn't, it's time for her to go!
Click to expand...

Until she actually reneges on her word,until she actually interferes when she returns to work. There is no cause to incarcerate her. If she does then the judge will act. Not before she does.

The plm i find is in your last few lines.
Sodomy was illegal for a long time, that didnt stop gays, or straights. and neither did waging a finger telling them they must obey the law. Neither did persecution, jail, mental institutions as honosexuality was at one time viewed as a mental illness. Regardless on what the law demanded, it was ignored, and many suffered greatly when they were caught. But the law was not followed.

"Laws must be followed...when will they get the laws must be obeyed.its not up to them to ignore the laws they disagree with and follow the ones they dont... The law is the law..law is law"..ad nuseum.

Stating the same to this women, doesnt really do anything at all to adress the issues.
Its just repeating the exact same lines they used against gays. While laws were ignored,
Law is law...follow the law or else...
Fine..
But its a tiresom argument really from both sides
 
hoichi said:
Well....guess its her right to try, no matter how futile, all things considered.
Click to expand...


Well....guess its my right to try to commit murder, no matter how futile, all things considered.

By the way, murder isn't legal. Neither is defying a SCOTUS ruling.
 
AlleyCat said:
Well....guess its my right to try to commit murder, no matter how futile, all things considered.

By the way, murder isn't legal. Neither is defying a SCOTUS ruling.
Click to expand...

Its her right to use her lawyer to play the system any legel way he finds to..
Thats all my statement was to. Indeed it will be futile as the supreme court has ruled. If her laywer wants to waste his time and try what ever he will. So be it...

Not sure how u jumped from that to murder..you dont have a right to murder, but you do have a right to play the legal system, futile or not.

If her defying the scotus is illegal, then she should be charged with that crime, and given her day in court like every other charged criminal.
Or should due process be tossed out the window just for her?
 
Murder was just a mere example. The idea behind that example is we are supposed to follow the law, and murder, burglary, rape, etc. are not legal, AS WELL AS defying the SCOTUS. This is a hopeless argument, I'm done.
 
In a Friday motion filed with the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Davis' attorneys asked that she be allowed to continue banning marriage licenses for her entire office until the case is settled.
Click to expand...

If that's not interference I'm not sure what else is. Though her attorney(s) are trying to make it a very fine point that the initial order was "just for the (4) couples who are suing her". "Until the case is settled" could mean days, weeks, months or years- and I'm betting it could be months or years.

I'm not sure how any licenses are now "void without her authority" if her name is already on the licenses. Interesting that she thinks she can be the sole judge and jury in who gets the licenses (and I can hear some saying if that were true she would have denied any to divorced individuals- cherry picking her beliefs).

I have no problems with her not issuing them as is her "right" but I do have a problem with her not allowing anyone else in her office to issue them.

I don't know why there isn't a movement to remove her name unless it's a time consuming process to do so.
 
According to her attorney's arguments. They already issued the marriage license to all the same-sex couples and now Kim Davis want to go back to denying the marriage license to rest of the same-sex couples, and she want to force her office to do the same thing as well. She even tried to argue the facts that because the marriage license doesn't have her name on it, it's 'void'.

She's not really done yet playing the martyr.
 
DeafDucky said:
. . . (and I can hear some saying if that were true she would have denied any to divorced individuals- cherry picking her beliefs)....
Click to expand...
Is marriage by divorced individuals against her beliefs?
 
Reba said:
Is marriage by divorced individuals against her beliefs?
Click to expand...

Probably not given the number of times she has been married herself. It would have to be a late change if that is now what she believes.
 
hoichi said:
Until she actually reneges on her word,until she actually interferes when she returns to work. There is no cause to incarcerate her. If she does then the judge will act. Not before she does.

The plm i find is in your last few lines.
Sodomy was illegal for a long time, that didnt stop gays, or straights. and neither did waging a finger telling them they must obey the law. Neither did persecution, jail, mental institutions as honosexuality was at one time viewed as a mental illness. Regardless on what the law demanded, it was ignored, and many suffered greatly when they were caught. But the law was not followed.

"Laws must be followed...when will they get the laws must be obeyed.its not up to them to ignore the laws they disagree with and follow the ones they dont... The law is the law..law is law"..ad nuseum.

Stating the same to this women, doesnt really do anything at all to adress the issues.
Its just repeating the exact same lines they used against gays. While laws were ignored,
Law is law...follow the law or else...
Fine..
But its a tiresom argument really from both sides
Click to expand...

The problem with this woman is not so much that she is ignoring the law regarding same sex marriage in her state, but who knows what other laws she is either looking the other way at or refusing to enforce them? She needs to go!
 
DeafDucky said:
If that's not interference I'm not sure what else is. Though her attorney(s) are trying to make it a very fine point that the initial order was "just for the (4) couples who are suing her". "Until the case is settled" could mean days, weeks, months or years- and I'm betting it could be months or years.

I'm not sure how any licenses are now "void without her authority" if her name is already on the licenses. Interesting that she thinks she can be the sole judge and jury in who gets the licenses (and I can hear some saying if that were true she would have denied any to divorced individuals- cherry picking her beliefs).

I have no problems with her not issuing them as is her "right" but I do have a problem with her not allowing anyone else in her office to issue them.

I don't know why there isn't a movement to remove her name unless it's a time consuming process to do so.
Click to expand...

This whole case is frivolous and her attorneys are just trying to make a name for themselves and pad their pockets with legal fees (probably at the publics expense, since Davis is a public official). They have no legal standing since the Supreme Court has made it's ruling and said that granting marriage licenses is now the law of the land. Davis needs to obey the law or she needs to step down, because if she doesn't obey the law then she is not upholding the laws that she took an oath to protect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top