PDA

View Full Version : Thomas Massie on Kim Davis' refusal to issue marriage licenses to gay couples




tsai3904
09-02-2015, 03:56 PM
Rep. Thomas Massie said Wednesday Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has a “moral” right to defy the Supreme Court and continue her refusal to grant marriage licenses to gay couples.

Massie said her allegiance is to Kentucky’s Constitution – not the high court’s June ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

“When Mrs. Davis was elected, she swore an oath to Kentucky's Constitution which, as in 29 other states, contained a provision to protect traditional marriage,” Massie, R-Ky., said in a statement to the Enquirer.

“The spurious and un-American way in which the law, and therefore her job description, abruptly changed mid-term gives Mrs. Davis a moral, if not legal, defense for her actions until her next election and until a legitimate rewriting of Kentucky's marriage laws occurs during a legislative session with elected officials," Massie said.

...

More:
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/02/paul-clerks-gay-marriage-defiance-american-way/71584648/

RDM
09-02-2015, 05:08 PM
He continues to justify every dollar I've donated to him and never disappoints unlike someone else I've donated a bunch of money to.

juleswin
09-02-2015, 05:13 PM
He continues to justify every dollar I've donated to him and never disappoints unlike someone else I've donated a bunch of money to.

Who? Lindsey Graham?

Krugminator2
09-02-2015, 06:37 PM
She absolutely has a moral right to express her view.

Of course, whoever is above her should fire her immediately. This is the same logic as unionization. You absolutely have every moral right to unionize. And the business owner(s) have ever right to fire you if you try.

specsaregood
09-02-2015, 06:41 PM
Of course, whoever is above her should fire her immediately. This is the same logic as unionization. You absolutely have every moral right to unionize. And the business owner(s) have ever right to fire you if you try.

you mean the voters? its an elected position.

jj-
09-02-2015, 06:44 PM
you mean the voters? its an elected position.

They should pass a law to make it impossible to fine her, then her bosses (the voters) could freely decide whether they want to fire her or approve of her performance.

William Tell
09-02-2015, 07:48 PM
YAY Thomas!:D

PaleoPaul
09-02-2015, 11:16 PM
He's wrong. She swore an oath to defend the US Constitution as well. DO YOUR JOB OR QUIT, MISSY.

Christian Liberty
09-02-2015, 11:19 PM
Homosexuals are inherently anti-liberty, period, end of story...

William Tell
09-02-2015, 11:32 PM
He's wrong. She swore an oath to defend the US Constitution as well. DO YOUR JOB OR QUIT, MISSY.

Ever read it? What makes you say she's violating the U.S Constitution?

kcchiefs6465
09-03-2015, 03:33 AM
you mean the voters? its an elected position.
Could always get rid of the position...















http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/962428/jack-and-sydney-laughing-o.gif (http://gifsoup.com/view/962428/jack-and-sydney-laughing.html)

erowe1
09-03-2015, 04:30 AM
Of course, whoever is above her should fire her immediately.

Why?

Has Kentucky yet passed any legislation requiring their clerks to issue same-sex marriage licenses?

It's not like she works for the Supreme Court.

erowe1
09-03-2015, 04:31 AM
He's wrong. She swore an oath to defend the US Constitution as well. DO YOUR JOB OR QUIT, MISSY.


Ever read it? What makes you say she's violating the U.S Constitution?

+1

I'd also like to hear PaleoPaul's reasoning on this.

GunnyFreedom
09-03-2015, 05:29 AM
He's wrong. She swore an oath to defend the US Constitution as well. DO YOUR JOB OR QUIT, MISSY.
Because the U.S. Constitution has so much to say about government authority over marriage.....

Tywysog Cymru
09-03-2015, 07:29 AM
I completely support what she is doing. You don't just get to end the debate on a controversial issue because it hurts peoples' feelings (which is what the Supreme Court tried to do).

Christian Liberty
09-03-2015, 07:36 AM
+1

I'd also like to hear PaleoPaul's reasoning on this.

Because he's proud of his perversion, and he wants everyone else to be as well. Its really as simple as that. Again, open and proud homosexuals will never be pro-liberty. Just one more reason the perversion should be suppressed.

tod evans
09-03-2015, 07:44 AM
Because he's proud of his perversion, and he wants everyone else to be as well. Its really as simple as that. Again, open and proud homosexuals will never be pro-liberty. Just one more reason the perversion should be suppressed.

By whom?

Certainly not the federal government.

LibertyEagle
09-03-2015, 07:54 AM
He's wrong. She swore an oath to defend the US Constitution as well. DO YOUR JOB OR QUIT, MISSY.

Last time I checked, there was nothing in the U.S. Constitution about gay marriage.

Christian Liberty
09-03-2015, 08:47 AM
By whom?

Certainly not the federal government.

I'd ultimately support the local government suppressing it, but for now I'd settle for local governments ignoring their absurd requests for "marriage."

I agree, get the feds out of everything. I'm talking like county by county here...

Rothbardian Girl
09-03-2015, 09:00 AM
While I normally like what Thomas has to say about things, I wonder what the reaction would be to a hardline Muslim DMV clerk who refuses to issue women drivers' licenses on the grounds of a religious objection?

GunnyFreedom
09-03-2015, 09:02 AM
While I normally like what Thomas has to say about things, I wonder what the reaction would be to a hardline Muslim DMV clerk who refuses to issue women drivers' licenses on the grounds of a religious objection?
I've never heard of DMV clerks being an elected position

wizardwatson
09-03-2015, 09:08 AM
He's wrong. She swore an oath to defend the US Constitution as well. DO YOUR JOB OR QUIT, MISSY.

It seems there's an army of people on here that don't grasp that this is a state's rights issue legally, not a civil rights one. That's the ultimate lie that this entire decision is fabricated on, and most of the country has fallen for it.

Because obviously a clerk in California WOULD lose her job. Because in California it is legal. This is nothing but federal judicial fiat. I don't fault her for resisting. It's futile, likely, probably she'll have to quit, but she isn't wrong.

erowe1
09-03-2015, 09:30 AM
While I normally like what Thomas has to say about things, I wonder what the reaction would be to a hardline Muslim DMV clerk who refuses to issue women drivers' licenses on the grounds of a religious objection?

How would they get the job in the first place without agreeing to perform the job duties? And wouldn't they just get fired for it?

erowe1
09-03-2015, 09:31 AM
It's futile, likely, probably she'll have to quit, but she isn't wrong.

You may be right. But has Kentucky actually changed its state laws on this yet?

Occam's Banana
09-03-2015, 10:43 AM
While I normally like what Thomas has to say about things, I wonder what [his] reaction would be to a hardline Muslim DMV clerk who refuses to issue women drivers' licenses on the grounds of a religious objection? I don't know - but whatever it might be, I'd be surprised (and disappointed) if it granted much if any authority to the Feds or SCOTUS, one way or the other ...

wizardwatson
09-03-2015, 10:50 AM
You may be right. But has Kentucky actually changed its state laws on this yet?

I believe how it works is a federal judge simply declares the constitutional amendment defining marriage as 1 man 1 woman as "unconstitutional" and then if any clerk denies a license a judge has to order the clerk to comply and threaten contempt otherwise. The state government isn't legally obligated to enforce a federal legal interpretation when the entire state lawmakers are against it, I'm guessing.

So basically a federal judge will have to remove her by throwing her in jail.

We have same scenario in Kansas it's just all of our county clerks are complying with the federal judge's declaration that our Constitutional amendment is unconstitutional.

PaleoPaul
09-03-2015, 11:15 AM
Oh, and she instructed her employees to NOT issue licenses. Another reason she should be held in contempt. It would be one thing if she alone was refusing to issue the licenses. But for her to instruct her entire staff to not issue the licenses? What about THEIR sincerely-held beliefs?

GunnyFreedom
09-03-2015, 11:17 AM
AP Breaking News app just said that a judge has ordered her to jail.

tod evans
09-03-2015, 11:45 AM
AP Breaking News app just said that a judge has ordered her to jail.

Gosh!

Wonder what the Evangelicals are going to DO about this?

Bend over and spread 'em, those who stridently quote Romans 13.

Do ya' see where peaceful acquiescence gets ya'?

Brett85
09-03-2015, 07:19 PM
He's wrong. She swore an oath to defend the US Constitution as well. DO YOUR JOB OR QUIT, MISSY.

That's exactly what she's doing, upholding the Constitution. She's been sent to prison for upholding the Constitution.

Tywysog Cymru
09-03-2015, 10:20 PM
He's wrong. She swore an oath to defend the US Constitution as well. DO YOUR JOB OR QUIT, MISSY.

She's not the one who isn't defending the Constitution. You're thinking of Justice Ginsburg, Justice Kagan, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kennedy.

cindy25
09-04-2015, 05:36 AM
They should pass a law to make it impossible to fine her, then her bosses (the voters) could freely decide whether they want to fire her or approve of her performance.

they already require impeachment by the state legislature.

erowe1
09-04-2015, 07:10 AM
I believe how it works is a federal judge simply declares the constitutional amendment defining marriage as 1 man 1 woman as "unconstitutional" and then if any clerk denies a license a judge has to order the clerk to comply and threaten contempt otherwise. The state government isn't legally obligated to enforce a federal legal interpretation when the entire state lawmakers are against it, I'm guessing.

Where does the judge get the funding to back up that contempt of court order?

goldwater's ghost
09-07-2015, 02:24 AM
While I normally like what Thomas has to say about things, I wonder what the reaction would be to a hardline Muslim DMV clerk who refuses to issue women drivers' licenses on the grounds of a religious objection? and you think kentucky would pass such a law

VegasPatriot
09-07-2015, 10:15 AM
More:
Rep. Thomas Massie said Wednesday Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has a “moral” right to defy the Supreme Court and continue her refusal to grant marriage licenses to gay couples.

Massie said her allegiance is to Kentucky’s Constitution – not the high court’s June ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.

“When Mrs. Davis was elected, she swore an oath to Kentucky's Constitution which, as in 29 other states, contained a provision to protect traditional marriage,” Massie, R-Ky., said in a statement to the Enquirer.

“The spurious and un-American way in which the law, and therefore her job description, abruptly changed mid-term gives Mrs. Davis a moral, if not legal, defense for her actions until her next election and until a legitimate rewriting of Kentucky's marriage laws occurs during a legislative session with elected officials," Massie said.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/02/paul-clerks-gay-marriage-defiance-american-way/71584648/

This is about a federal judge overstepping and unlawfully sending her to jail. This judge has basically said bend the knee and submit to my will or you will be jailed until you comply. The federal boot is on the back of her neck because she kept her oath. This is not about anything anti gay rights, it is about rule of law.

Christian Liberty
09-07-2015, 10:18 AM
She's not the one who isn't defending the Constitution. You're thinking of Justice Ginsburg, Justice Kagan, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kennedy.

The guys a PCUSA with a rainbow flag. So basically, a traitor to his own supposed faith (1 Corinthians 5.)

brandon
09-07-2015, 10:28 AM
First time I've really disagreed with Massie on something. If a judge isn't upholding the law they should be jailed.

erowe1
09-07-2015, 10:32 AM
First time I've really disagreed with Massie on something. If a judge isn't upholding the law they should be jailed.

Are you talking about the judge who had Kim Davis jailed?

I didn't see where Massie said that he shouldn't be jailed. I agree that he and the US Marshals who obeyed his order to arrest her should all be punished for that criminal act.

LibertyEagle
09-07-2015, 01:17 PM
Another perspective: http://allenbwest.com/2015/09/folks-youre-missing-the-point-about-the-kentucky-clerks-jail-sentence/

Sola_Fide
09-07-2015, 01:22 PM
Because he's proud of his perversion, and he wants everyone else to be as well. Its really as simple as that. Again, open and proud homosexuals will never be pro-liberty. Just one more reason the perversion should be suppressed.

I agree it should be suppressed. It is suppressed by the preaching of the gospel. It is suppressed voluntarily by the preaching of God's law.

But if you are using the government to "suppress" it, then you are just as anti-liberty as you say they are. You never give government that power, because it will come back to haunt you in ways you can't imagine.

Tywysog Cymru
09-07-2015, 02:28 PM
The guys a PCUSA with a rainbow flag. So basically, a traitor to his own supposed faith (1 Corinthians 5.)

The PCUSA, the organization that is despised by my PCA friends and my Baptist pastor. Never heard anything good about that group.

Sola_Fide
09-07-2015, 02:38 PM
The PCUSA, the organization that is despised by my PCA friends and my Baptist pastor. Never heard anything good about that group.

Yes. Not a Christian church.

Voluntarist
09-07-2015, 03:02 PM
Thomas Massie on Kim Davis' refusal to issue marriage licenses to gay couples

until a legitimate rewriting of Kentucky's marriage laws occurs during a legislative session with elected officials," Massie said

Correct me if I'm wrong on this. What Massie is saying would seem to imply that thousands upon thousands of interracial couples in South Carolina and Alabama are not legally married. Loving vs Virginia (1967) did away with anti-miscegenation clauses in all state laws upon issuance of the decision. However, South Carolina did not adjust its laws until 1998, and Alabama did not adjust its laws until 2000 (in fact, Alabama had to modify its constitution). By Massie's contention, none of the interracial couples married prior to those legislative adjustments can claim to be in a legally recognized marriage. THere's probably all kinds of back taxes to be paid. Estates could probably be seized. Hell, there's thousands of people that really ought to be imprisoned for engaging in interracial sex.

But all of that is complete bovine fecal material. The interracial marriages which the feds compelled the authorities in those states to register/recognize are completely valid and legally recognized.

Tywysog Cymru
09-07-2015, 03:20 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong on this. What Massie is saying would seem to imply that thousands upon thousands of interracial couples in South Carolina and Alabama are not legally married. Loving vs Virginia (1967) did away with anti-miscegenation clauses in all state laws upon issuance of the decision. However, South Carolina did not adjust its laws until 1998, and Alabama did not adjust its laws until 2000 (in fact, Alabama had to modify its constitution). By Massie's contention, none of the interracial couples married prior to those legislative adjustments can claim to be in a legally recognized marriage. THere's probably all kinds of back taxes to be paid. Estates could probably be seized. Hell, there's thousands of people that really ought to be imprisoned for engaging in interracial sex.

But all of that is complete bovine fecal material. The interracial marriages which the feds compelled the authorities in those states to register/recognize are completely valid and legally recognized.

The Fourteenth Amendment actually applies to interracial marriage, while it doesn't apply to gay marriage. The government is allowed to discriminate based on gender but not race.

RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
09-07-2015, 04:23 PM
I believe how it works is a federal judge simply declares the constitutional amendment defining marriage as 1 man 1 woman as "unconstitutional" .

It's not just that one amendment. All of the marriage code has references to there being one wife or one husband in the marriage. That includes the section of the Kentucky Code about who may or must issue marriage licenses. As Massie correctly pointed out, that part of the law has been voided by the SCOTUS and Kentucky has yet to write new marriage laws. Even if you think the SCOTUS ruling is legitimate and should be respected there is no marriage law in Kentucky right now that Davis could follow even if she wanted to.

euphemia
09-07-2015, 05:24 PM
You may be right. But has Kentucky actually changed its state laws on this yet?

Of course not. The SCOTUS ruling was only six weeks ago. Since when did a legistlature do anything in six weeks?

euphemia
09-07-2015, 05:25 PM
First time I've really disagreed with Massie on something. If a judge isn't upholding the law they should be jailed.


What law?

Sola_Fide
09-07-2015, 05:29 PM
Of course not. The SCOTUS ruling was only six weeks ago. Since when did a legistlature do anything in six weeks?

You are right.

euphemia
09-07-2015, 05:33 PM
Of course I'm right. Just because this as been discussed ad nauseum with all the requisite shaming and name calling, people expect that there will be no pushback on a Supreme Court ruling. When hasn't there been pushback? George Wallace did it.

Kentucky has not changed its law, which would require a Constitutional amendment recinding the one passed in 2004, and approved by 75% of the vote.

Voluntarist
09-07-2015, 06:10 PM
The Fourteenth Amendment actually applies to interracial marriage, while it doesn't apply to gay marriage. The government is allowed to discriminate based on gender but not race.

But that's not what Massie is saying. He's saying that, regardless, a Supreme Court decision ain't law until the states make it so. And South Carolina didn't incorporate Loving vs Virginia into law until 1998. And Alabama didn't do it until 2000. If Massie's perspective is correct, then there's an awful lot of people who think they're married but really aren't. In fact, by Massies's perspective, those people should have been imprisoned because it was a criminal offense.

Christian Liberty
09-07-2015, 07:01 PM
The PCUSA, the organization that is despised by my PCA friends and my Baptist pastor. Never heard anything good about that group.

Baptists and Conservative Presbyterians both don't like it because its apostate. There are a few good churches stuck in it for various reasons (though PaleoPaul isn't one of them considering the rainbow flag and whatnot) but the vast majority utterly don't care about the Bible like at all.

osan
09-08-2015, 09:23 PM
Homosexuals are inherently anti-liberty, period, end of story...

A bit beside the point, don't you think?

Besides, painting with such a broad brush is like saying "All Christians are <fill in some unflattering stereotype here>".

Labels are tricky critters at best and almost always warrant great care in the ways in which we make use of them.

osan
09-08-2015, 09:40 PM
Just one more reason the perversion should be suppressed.

We see how well that works in the world, not to mention the possible implication of your words to suggest that the individual reserves no right to such perversions, in which case you would have a rather mountainous task ahead of you, proving the assertion. Good luck with that.

Based on what you have written, you have a problem with *****. I have no problem with your problem. You are entitled to regard *****ness and *****s any way you wish. I do not, however, believe that you or anyone else holds any authority to "suppress" such "perversion", particularly if I read your meaning of "suppress" correctly. But let me not assume anything here - what do you mean by "suppress"? That aside, before you wave your bible at me, don't bother because any purported authority there is non-credible to me until such time as God Hisownself comes down from On High and issues the fiat in face-to-face fashion. If He has the authority, then He must exercise it. I accept no proxy there.

I fully support your right to regard *****s any way you please; to hate them with great bile; to make waxen images and stick them with pins, and so forth. But I draw the line at any denial of their fundamental human rights.

***** may be abnormal, and it is, but it is not unnatural. That aside, neither normality nor naturalness are required in order for a man to be able to exercise his rights. Were naturalness (whatever in hell that even means) required, we would not be tattoing ourselves, dying hair, wearing clothing, driving automobiles, much less flying aircraft. We would not be living in houses or cooking our food, and so on down a very long list of the unnatural things we daily do. The requirement to be "normal" is so lacking in credibility as to not be worthy of address.

Live.

Let live.

That is the Golden Rule and it is the cornerstone of the faith your moniker proclaims to arrogate to yourself. Be anything you want to be, but for pity's sake don't be a hypocrite.

osan
09-08-2015, 09:50 PM
While I normally like what Thomas has to say about things, I wonder what the reaction would be to a hardline Muslim DMV clerk who refuses to issue women drivers' licenses on the grounds of a religious objection?


I've never heard of DMV clerks being an elected position

While your point is valid, Gunny, so is RG's and I think it merits a better answer.

As for me, my first observation is that driving ought not be licensed in the first place. Remove that nonsense and the Muslim clerk would have to find himself a new job.

That aside, IMO an employee or office holder of some governing agency is obliged to follow the law if we are going to retain such absurdities, which is another thing with which I would dispense yesterday. If the law says that women are to be given equal access to the obtaining of drivers' licenses, then the clerk is bound to give them to thoe women who qualify by the objective standard. When you step into your office, you take your religious beliefs and hang them up with your coat insofar as they may interfere with your ability to discharge your SECULAR duties of office to the constituents whose tax monies pay your salary. Anything less and you should be run out.

In this case, there appears to be some notable ambiguity as to the state of the law in KY. I have read, and I have NO idea if this is true, that she was refusing ALL marriage licenses precisely because of the unsettled state of the law.

However, things are not even quite that cut and dried. For example, what if KY reinstated Jim Crow? By some accounts, she would be obliged to accord in her actions with such laws. Here I would disagree and applaud her presentations of the middle finger to anyone demanding she went "by the law".

osan
09-08-2015, 09:54 PM
While I normally like what Thomas has to say about things, I wonder what the reaction would be to a hardline Muslim DMV clerk who refuses to issue women drivers' licenses on the grounds of a religious objection?


Gosh!

Wonder what the Evangelicals are going to DO about this?

Please tell me that was a rhetorical question.


Bend over and spread 'em, those who stridently quote Romans 13.

Pretty much, yes.


Do ya' see where peaceful acquiescence gets ya'?

Yes: America, 2015. And it is going to get a whole lot worse.

osan
09-08-2015, 10:06 PM
Of course I'm right. Just because this as been discussed ad nauseum with all the requisite shaming and name calling, people expect that there will be no pushback on a Supreme Court ruling. When hasn't there been pushback? George Wallace did it.

Aren't his balls hanging from someone's rear-view mirror?

Origanalist
09-08-2015, 10:09 PM
[snip]
Yes: America, 2015. And it is going to get a whole lot worse.

Yes it will, why? Because we're going to let it.

osan
09-09-2015, 08:31 AM
Yes it will, why? Because we're going to let it.

Sadly, this is the precise truth. Sadder still, we might still be able to stop it today without having to lift a single finger in physical violence. We have all the procedural violence we need at our fingertips, but we will not use it for our ignorance and corruption.

This is the thing I understand least about "God's" scheme of things - why do the good have to be consumed with the rest? I honestly and most sincerely mean it when I say that I do not care in the least if, say, 3/4 of all Americans died TODAY in consequence of their bottomlessly corrupt ways. I have no empathy for people who by choice behave as if they had no brains. Was it not written in the Protocols that he who refuses to use his brain is the same as one who has none?

But what of the rest? What of the good people who are earnest and decent and endeavor to use their good minds to the best of their abilities? People who trespass not against their brethren and show all the proper respect? People who are curious and creative and bring good things to the world? What about them? Why do they have to be consumed in the flames of brutal destruction along with the rest? I would save the horde-majority of unforgivably stupid Americans just to save those who stand above them in quality. And yet, good is destroyed alongside the evil indiscriminately. Truly there is little, if any, justice in the horrific world of the man-beast.