Ky. County clerk makes a stand against feds

[wizardwatson]

If she was in the private sector, yes. But she's not in the private sector.

You take a government paycheck, you play by government rules.

Employees that refuse to adhere to company policies don't get celebrated, they get fired.

When the Supreme Court upholds a law that outlaws "talking" because of CO2 restrictions on the basis that you still have other means to communicate and it doesn't violate the 1st amendment, are you going to obey it?

That's an example of how ridiculous of a decision gay marriage is in the eyes of some people. Not only is it a violation of common sense, it also is pretty much as far as the federal government can stick it's nose into state's rights as possible.

And she is following the rules of her government. The fed's have no jurisdiction over marriage. This is judicial fiat.

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

cheques

Are you some kind of British imperialist?

[wizardwatson]

U.S. Constitution amendment 1:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

and this...

Kentucky Constitution Bill of Rights, Section 1

All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned:

First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties.

Second: The right of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences.

Oh, no, but then there's this:

U.S. Constitution 14th amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

But somehow this 14th amendment is interpreted by five judges to mean that it's allowed to violate the 1st on for every state in the union.

This is what we call bull$#@!.

There is no sane argument I have heard that justifies SCOTUS unilaterally redefining marriage for 300,000,000 people and simultaneously trashing the 10th and 1st amendment.

That's not even unexpected though these days. What's troublesome is people on this forum having a hard time figuring out that this is unconstitutional and then taking the even greater step of saying that this lady should just "follow the law" because "it's the law".

Why should she? If the highest court in the land can ignore God's and man's law to please 3% of the population, why can't this lady ignore man's law to please God?

If lawlessness rules the day you can't judge her morally.

[idiom]

I'm so glad you can see what goes on in the heart of others. unfortunately I do not have that ability.
I also do not think that a meme accurately sums up one's life.
Also, it seems to me that you are proposing that people be forced to prove or justify their moral objections.

She is trying to justify her moral objections. Her moral objections are strangely very picky based on her supposed justification.

[Jamesiv1]

just following orders, bro.

I'm glad snowden didn't follow your rules.

Is Snowden still getting a paycheck?

He chose to bust his employer's balls, and now his former employer wants to hang him. That's the way it works.

I'm not saying you've got to follow orders. I'm just saying if you don't, then don't be surprised when you get fired.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[William Tell]

The tyranny of the majority, you say?

The Constitution leaves issues like marriage to be hashed out by the states/people. The federal government doesn't have any say in Kentucky marriages. That's just how the Constitution works, you are the one supporting federal tyranny.

My personal views on marriage don't come into this, although I oppose homosexual marriage, and believe there is no such thing. I disagree with Kentucky's Amendment 1, I don't think any government should be involved in or define or redefine marriage. But we live in a Republic, not a democracy or a Williamtatorship. Constitutionally Kentucky is in the right.

[Sonny Tufts]

There is no sane argument I have heard that justifies SCOTUS unilaterally redefining marriage for 300,000,000 people and simultaneously trashing the 10th and 1st amendment.

There is no sane argument for laws prohibiting same-sex marriages.

I suppose you think the Court was wrong in Brown and Loving, when it told states they couldn't maintain racially segregated schools or prohibit interracial marriage. After all, didn't the States have the 10th Amendment right to do such things?

The point that continues to elude you is that while Davis has the right to practice her religion, she doesn't have the right to do so as a public employee if it interferes with her duties. If there's a conflict between doing her job and adhering to her religious views, the only choice is to resign.

Would you argue that a family law judge who doesn't believe in divorce on religious grounds should be able to refuse to hear divorce cases and still keep his or her job? Or that a Muslim DMV worker should be able to refuse to issue driver's licenses to women?

If the highest court in the land can ignore God's and man's law

In this country, man's highest law is the Constitution, not a state law that violates it. As far as God's law is concerned, where did you get the notion that we're some kind of theocracy and that it's the duty of the Court to follow your, their, or someone else's interpretation of God's law? After all, the First Amendment isn't exactly consistent with God's law -- it allows one to be a polytheist, in violation of the First Commandment, right?

[William Tell]

More baseless racial connections from Sonny. Just call anyone who disagrees with you racist, eh?
The 9th and 10th amendments don't exist anymore because racism?

[juleswin]

More baseless racial connections from Sonny. Just call anyone who disagrees with you racist, eh?
The 9th and 10th amendments don't exist anymore because racism?

Sorry but I am even going to go a bit further. So when the supreme court struck down state laws that made it illegal for interracial couples to get marriage license, was it a bad decision from the supreme court? if it had happened now, would have been against it as you are now with homosexual marriages? See there is no place in the constitution that said anything about marriage so that would have been just as unconstitutional as what they did now.

Also interracial marriages are even mentioned in the bible as being against God's will. So we have a similar situation as we had with interracial marriages and I would be curious to see if you are also against it too. Its only fair that you are consistent in your views about govt.

Deuteronomy 22:9:

"Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled."

I think the best solution for all this is either to eliminate the position completely or give the homosexuals some kind of tax rebate every year that covers their portion of their taxes that go to her office. It probably won't dent her pay cheque now and everybody wins. Don't you love it when everybody wins?

[tod evans]

There is no sane argument for laws prohibiting same-sex marriages.

I suppose you think the Court was wrong in Brown and Loving, when it told states they couldn't maintain racially segregated schools or prohibit interracial marriage. After all, didn't the States have the 10th Amendment right to do such things?

The point that continues to elude you is that while Davis has the right to practice her religion, she doesn't have the right to do so as a public employee if it interferes with her duties. If there's a conflict between doing her job and adhering to her religious views, the only choice is to resign.

Would you argue that a family law judge who doesn't believe in divorce on religious grounds should be able to refuse to hear divorce cases and still keep his or her job? Or that a Muslim DMV worker should be able to refuse to issue driver's licenses to women?



In this country, man's highest law is the Constitution, not a state law that violates it. As far as God's law is concerned, where did you get the notion that we're some kind of theocracy and that it's the duty of the Court to follow your, their, or someone else's interpretation of God's law? After all, the First Amendment isn't exactly consistent with God's law -- it allows one to be a polytheist, in violation of the First Commandment, right?

Are you really so obtuse?

Or do you assume readers of this forum are too stupid to distinguish between federal and county employees?

I'd like to see every county clerk stop reporting everything to the feds.

Every county elected official refusing to enforce federal edicts his constituency rejected.

$#@! a homogenized society!

[Sonny Tufts]

$#@! the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause!

Fixed it for you.

[William Tell]

Sorry but I am even going to go a bit further. So when the supreme court struck down state laws that made it illegal for interracial couples to get marriage license, was it a bad decision from the supreme court?

False choice. The federal government has no authority over marriage. Sure, you can find examples and make the case if you want that sometimes courts should make rulings outside their legal jurisdiction. You can find examples and make the case that federal law enforcement should overstep their bounds for the greater good regardless of what the Constitution says. The argument goes Al Capone was a bad person, therefor throw the book at him with whatever you can find. People in the mainstream make this case about the bad guys all the time, I get it.

But this throws the whole constitution out the window. It's letting the camel's nose under the tent, you agree with the supreme court's decision. I doubt you would have agreed that we should accept their will on marriage if they had ruled in the other direction on homosexual marriage. And since you want to make this about interracial marriage, would you have accepted a SCOTUS ruling that banned interracial marriage?

The question does not apply to me, marriage is not part of their job. Just like convicting rapists is not their job. You can jump up and down and point fingers and say that I support crime because of what i just said. But that doesn't make it true. If SCOTUS heard 1,000 violent crime cases this year, and tossed 1,000 violent criminals behind bars, you can clap your hands all you want. And understandably so, of course criminals should be punished, right?
Yeah, I think so too.

But its dumb, its not what they get paid to do. They wouldn't have time to do their real job.

Anytime you support Judicial Overreach, you should ask yourself whether you would agree with the opposite ruling. I suppose you could support SCOTUS overreach once, just this one time. But it doesn't work that way, they will keep on overstepping their jurisdiction, and sooner or later rule in some way that hurts you. As a matter of fact I'm sure they have in the past. Keep telling yourself you can pick and choose rulings, just like sometimes people in the government pick and choose respecting the bill of rights.

Also interracial marriages are even mentioned in the bible as being against God's will.

No.... I've read it a few times and haven't seen anywhere where it says that. Moses had an Ethiopian wife, I assume she was black, God seemed more than OK with that if you read where she is mentioned.

So we have a similar situation as we had with interracial marriages and I would be curious to see if you are also against it too. Its only fair that you are consistent in your views about govt.

How is it similar? We are discussing the Constitution. SCOTUS says certain things are in the Constitution that clearly are not. If the keep it up they might say drinking a Slurpee violates the Constitution. It doesn't. I personally oppose all government involvement in marriage at all levels. My views, and what the Constitution says are totally different things. Projecting your views into the Constitution is dangerous. Disagreeing with the Constitution is fine, but pretending it says things it doesn't is absurd.

Besides, a man marrying a woman who looks different than him is totally different than the federal government entirely redefining what marriage is. All men and women look different. The idea of men "marrying" other men is a brand new idea.

Deuteronomy 22:9: "Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled."

You honestly think that verse is referring to people marrying other people? Wow.

[Sonny Tufts]

More baseless racial connections from Sonny. Just call anyone who disagrees with you racist, eh?
The 9th and 10th amendments don't exist anymore because racism?

What's baseless is your pathetic take on what I posted. Juleswin got it right -- if you think Obergefell was overreach, logic dictates that Brown and Loving were as well. Regardless of the merits of racial segregation or anti-miscegenation laws, your position would lead to the conclusion that the States have the constitutional right to enact such laws, and the 14th Amendment be damned.

[tod evans]

Fixed it for you.

Thanks.

I have no problem with that.

[Christian Liberty]

Quoting that text to oppose interracial marriage is silly. Although honestly I think the way our system is currently set up that is not a federal issue, contra the courts.

[wizardwatson]

There is no sane argument for laws prohibiting same-sex marriages.

I suppose you think the Court was wrong in Brown and Loving, when it told states they couldn't maintain racially segregated schools or prohibit interracial marriage. After all, didn't the States have the 10th Amendment right to do such things?

The point that continues to elude you is that while Davis has the right to practice her religion, she doesn't have the right to do so as a public employee if it interferes with her duties. If there's a conflict between doing her job and adhering to her religious views, the only choice is to resign.

Would you argue that a family law judge who doesn't believe in divorce on religious grounds should be able to refuse to hear divorce cases and still keep his or her job? Or that a Muslim DMV worker should be able to refuse to issue driver's licenses to women?

Your argument has been debunked by me, the dissenting Justices, and black civil rights leaders.

I've posted this multiple times on this forum.

The sane argument most definitely is the 10th amendment.

Marriage has been defined as 1 man 1 woman consistently in this country since its founding. Adding a qualifier of race diminishes it just the same as subtracting a gender qualifier. Although, this seems to be every detractors first line of defense the scenarios are not the same. Brown and Loving does not apply.

There is no point that is eluding me. She is resisting unlawful federal intrusion. If you want to call this a "George Wallace" moment like the rest of the mainstream media and incorrectly parellel this with interracial marriage, I suppose that's your perogative. It works well with the uneducated.

Your divorce analogy doesn't work because it's an issue of state's rights, not "a judge doing what he wants". It would most definitely be a failure to perform duty if a California judge or clerk was pulling this stunt because gay marriage is legal in that state BUT IN KENTUCKY gay marriage has a constitutional ban.

So my point, if you need clarification, is that SCOTUS has jumped the shark big time on this and the issue is resisting federal infringement on state's rights. I don't see why she has to be complicit in the federal intrusion on the will of the people of Kentucky when there is no sound legal reason for them doing so besides "so let it be written, so let it be done" judicial fiat.

In this country, man's highest law is the Constitution, not a state law that violates it. As far as God's law is concerned, where did you get the notion that we're some kind of theocracy and that it's the duty of the Court to follow your, their, or someone else's interpretation of God's law? After all, the First Amendment isn't exactly consistent with God's law -- it allows one to be a polytheist, in violation of the First Commandment, right?

Again, my stance is that SCOTUS violated the 10th and 1st amendments on a political whim. The constitution is the highest law, but it allows states to make their own laws based on a higher authority. You are not asking her to follow the "law". You are requiring her to obey Obergefell v. Hodges decision in violation of 1st and 10th amendments and in violation of the state of Kentucky Constitution.



I've been following this since before it was news practically:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...nt-Obliterated

In my opinion, everyone who argues that gay marriage "should be legal everywhere" and approves of how it was enacted is not a libertarian when it comes to the law and the constitution. They may want to be, but they need to practice more.

[wizardwatson]

What's baseless is your pathetic take on what I posted. Juleswin got it right -- if you think Obergefell was overreach, logic dictates that Brown and Loving were as well. Regardless of the merits of racial segregation or anti-miscegenation laws, your position would lead to the conclusion that the States have the constitutional right to enact such laws, and the 14th Amendment be damned.

You're wrong, donkey kong. IT"S ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE, NOT THE DEFINITION OF PEOPLE AND THEIR GENDER/RACIAL SELF-IDENTIFICATION. Try to remember that.

http://www.vfbaptist.org/articles/ar...ticle00102.htm

Black Clergy Rejection Stirs Gay Marriage Backers

Bishop Gilbert A. Thompson Sr., who as pastor of New Covenant Christian Church in Mattapan heads the largest Protestant congregation in Massachusetts, said black ministers have many reasons for speaking out against gay marriage.

''We're weighing in on this because we're concerned with the epidemic rate of fatherlessness in America and in our community, and we don't think gay marriage helps that cause,'' he said.

Thompson said he believes that homosexuality is a choice and that ''to say there is such a thing as a gay Christian is saying there's an honest thief,'' because gay people can choose not to act on their homosexual impulses.

''I've read that [former presidential candidate] Carol Moseley Braun didn't see any difference between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage, but we believe the difference is enormous,'' Thompson said. ''Today, we look back with scorn at those who twisted the law to make marriage serve a racist agenda, and I believe our descendants will look back the same way at us if we yield to the same kind of pressure a radical sexual agenda is placing on us today. Just as it's distorting the equation of marriage if you press race into it, it's also distorting if you subtract gender.''

[William Tell]

double post.

[Occam's Banana]

Are you really so obtuse?

Or do you assume readers of this forum are too stupid to distinguish between federal and county employees?

I'd like to see every county clerk stop reporting everything to the feds.

Every county elected official refusing to enforce federal edicts his constituency rejected.

$#@! a homogenized society!

$#@! the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause!

Fixed it for you.

Thanks.

I have no problem with that.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to tod evans again.

//

[Sonny Tufts]

Your argument has been debunked by me

Only in your dreams.

Adding a qualifier of race diminishes it just the same as subtracting a gender qualifier.

Allowing gays to marry has no effect whatsoever on a hetero marriage.

She is resisting unlawful federal intrusion. If you want to call this a "George Wallace" moment like the rest of the mainstream media and incorrectly parellel this with interracial marriage, I suppose that's your perogative. It works well with the uneducated.

What is uneducated is the moronic notion that a Supreme Court decision is unlawful. Better take 9th grade civics again.

Your divorce analogy doesn't work because it's an issue of state's rights, not "a judge doing what he wants". It would most definitely be a failure to perform duty if a California judge or clerk was pulling this stunt because gay marriage is legal in that state BUT IN KENTUCKY gay marriage has a constitutional ban.

But Obergefell and the 14th Amendment trump Kentucky law, a point you have difficulty in grasping. And Davis isn't basing her defiance on Kentucky law or on state's rights, but upon her religious views.

Again, my stance is that SCOTUS violated the 10th and 1st amendments on a political whim.

That's your opinion, but it isn't the law.

The constitution is the highest law, but it allows states to make their own laws based on a higher authority.

Huh? You really need to take that civics class -- you may learn something about the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause. Seriously, your "States' Rights" argument is precisely the same argument that the segregationists made in response to Brown, and it should be obvious (except to the terminally dense) that this doesn't mean anyone who makes the argument is racist. Here, take this test and see if you can distinguish between the statements made in opposition to Brown and those made in response to Obergefell:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2..._our_quiz.html

Look, many people of good faith disagree with Obergefell. Fine. But like it or not, it's the law and to call it "illegal" is pure nonsense based upon abysmal ignorance of the way the law works. Call it wrong, misguided, poorly-reasoned, or politically-correct, result-oriented overreach. But don't be an idiot and call it illegal.

[wizardwatson]

Only in your dreams.



Allowing gays to marry has no effect whatsoever on a hetero marriage.



What is uneducated is the moronic notion that a Supreme Court decision is unlawful. Better take 9th grade civics again.



But Obergefell and the 14th Amendment trump Kentucky law, a point you have difficulty in grasping. And Davis isn't basing her defiance on Kentucky law or on state's rights, but upon her religious views.



That's your opinion, but it isn't the law.



Huh? You really need to take that civics class -- you may learn something about the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy Clause. Seriously, your "States' Rights" argument is precisely the same argument that the segregationists made in response to Brown, and it should be obvious (except to the terminally dense) that this doesn't mean anyone who makes the argument is racist. Here, take this test and see if you can distinguish between the statements made in opposition to Brown and those made in response to Obergefell:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2..._our_quiz.html

Look, many people of good faith disagree with Obergefell. Fine. But like it or not, it's the law and to call it "illegal" is pure nonsense based upon abysmal ignorance of the way the law works. Call it wrong, misguided, poorly-reasoned, or politically-correct, result-oriented overreach. But don't be an idiot and call it illegal.

Yeah, I get it, the law is whatever the Supreme Court says. If they interpret that the moon is made of swiss cheese then the law says it's cheese.

I already answered your segregation argument on another thread, which is the only one you've given.

[JK/SEA]

ok...we got a few pages in this thread now, what have we decided?

[tod evans]

ok...we got a few pages in this thread now, what have we decided?

Folks would rather discuss **** marriage than buckin' the feds...

[wizardwatson]

Only in your dreams.

I didn't want to repeat myself so I went back to the SCOTUS thread I created when this decision was announced to see if you were discussing it then...

SCOTUS legalizes Gay Marriage - 10th Amendment Obliterated
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...t-Obliterated/

..and you were. And you haven't changed your stance. Consistent I guess.

You fail to acknowledge still that what SCOTUS did was REDEFINE marriage. That's what they did. They didn't "extend" protections, because everyone was able to marry within the confines of the accepted definition. Gays are allowed to get married under the traditional meaning. Gays want to change the meaning to marry another guy or gal. That's a different thing.

If you change the definition unilaterally then, sure, it becomes a 14th amendment issue and in line with racial segregation.

But it's only because the definition is changed simultaneously that this logic applies.

I doubt you will accept that fact, since you haven't in the old thread.

[surf]

probably my last post on this topic (mild background applause)....

to me this is a freedom issue. it's a freedom issue for the gal operating under god's authority in that she is trying to deny certain freedoms, and it's a freedom issue for those that want to be free to marry.

the only workable answer here (and everywhere) is to let freedom rein. (thud - the sound of the mic hitting the floor as I walk away)

[tod evans]

I didn't want to repeat myself so I went back to the SCOTUS thread I created when this decision was announced to see if you were discussing it then...

SCOTUS legalizes Gay Marriage - 10th Amendment Obliterated
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...t-Obliterated/
.

Here's one of my posts from that thread that's in line with this thread;

This might bring fed-gov's power and authority into question.......

And that would be a good thing!

[Sonny Tufts]

You fail to acknowledge still that what SCOTUS did was REDEFINE marriage.

If you think they did, then so did the Loving court. In those states with anti-miscegenation laws marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman of the same race. Interracial couples could not get a marriage license, and the marriages of those who wed in other states weren't recognized.

[wizardwatson]

If you think they did, then so did the Loving court. In those states with anti-miscegenation laws marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman of the same race. Interracial couples could not get a marriage license, and the marriages of those who wed in other states weren't recognized.

If I say the "murder" is actually knocking someone out then I'm wrong.
If I say cutting someone's head off is NOT "murder" then I'm also wrong.

If I add race to the definition of marriage I'm wrong.
If I subtract gender from the definition of marriage I'm also wrong.

That's the objective stance.

Now given that subjectively we do have people who are polygamist or think it's ok to marry same gender the "grey area" should definitely be a state's rights issue and not something that the federal government unilaterally changes for every person in the country.

Like I said, this is your only real argument it seems, and it isn't applicable.

Segregation prevented people from getting married. Traditional marriage doesn't prevent people from getting married.

Marrying "whoever I want" is a different thing. I may want to marry someone else's wife, that doesn't mean I get to ask SCOTUS to nullify another mans marriage because we're "really in love".

[GunnyFreedom]

AP reporting that a judge has just ordered her to jail.