Kentucky clerk, ''God's moral law conflicts with my job duties''..

[HeulenHund2]

I respect that, I really do.
What I don't respect is her thinking she can refuse to carry out those job duties and still expect to be paid. The proper thing for her to do is resign. By refusing to do so she's placing HER interest, not God's first.
She wants it both ways, adults have to make these choices all the time. She wouldn't expect to work at an abortion clinic or porn shop. Why does she feel entitled to take tax payers' money for a job she refuses to perform ?

 

[dieharddawg62]

I agree with you. She doesn't need to do a job that conflicts with her beliefs.

 

[Ahmahtbychew]

The truth is her job is ministerial. Her only job is to process applications that meet the prevailing secular law according to that law, keep good records and account for money that she receives. Her faith only enters into it when she decides that she is the arbiter of the law.

 

[HeulenHund2]

The truth is her job is ministerial. Her only job is to process applications that meet the prevailing secular law according to that law, keep good records and account for money that she receives. Her faith only enters into it when she decides that she is the arbiter of the law.

I agree. There are quite a few jobs I wouldn't do for any number of reasons. I damn sure don't expect to be paid to not do them. Just quit lady, that would be the fair minded, adult thing to do.

 

[PotimusWillie]

I respect that, I really do.
What I don't respect is her thinking she can refuse to carry out those job duties and still expect to be paid. The proper thing for her to do is resign. By refusing to do so she's placing HER interest, not God's first.
She wants it both ways, adults have to make these choices all the time. She wouldn't expect to work at an abortion clinic or porn shop. Why does she feel entitled to take tax payers' money for a job she refuses to perform ?

She didn't apply for the job under these circumstances. The job has now changed.

It is up to her admin to fire her if she doesn't follow the law.

I respect her position and have no respect for those who continue to choose Christians to flaunt our county's new morality.

The media and her admin are milking this for what it's worth.

Just fire her. She can get another job. She will have earned it.

 

[Ahmahtbychew]

She didn't apply for the job under these circumstances. The job has now changed.

It is up to her admin to fire her if she doesn't follow the law.

I respect her position and have no respect for those who continue to choose Christians to flaunt our county's new morality.

The media and her admin are milking this for what it's worth.

Just fire her. She can get another job. She will have earned it.

Can't fire her: she's an elected official, like most clerks in Georgia. I guess they could impeach her.

 

[HeulenHund2]

She didn't apply for the job under these circumstances. The job has now changed.

It is up to her admin to fire her if she doesn't follow the law.

I respect her position and have no respect for those who continue to choose Christians to flaunt our county's new morality.

The media and her admin are milking this for what it's worth.

Just fire her. She can get another job. She will have earned it.

She can't just be fired, she's an elected official. The state legislature would have to convene and vote to impeach her, which I think takes a 2/3 majority.
How many of those elected representatives would be brave enough to vote to impeach ? It's on her to end this in a fair and reasonable manner. She's made herself a hero to many, job offers will likely pour in.

 

[whitepug6]

She didn't apply for the job under these circumstances. The job has now changed.

It is up to her admin to fire her if she doesn't follow the law.

I respect her position and have no respect for those who continue to choose Christians to flaunt our county's new morality.

The media and her admin are milking this for what it's worth.

Just fire her. She can get another job. She will have earned it.

Sorry. She swore an oath that she would uphold the US Constitution and the constitution of the commonwealth of Kentucky above all other considerations, including fundamentalist Christianity. As the federal judge noted, "oaths mean something."

This is the oath (Note the dueling references): "I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ——————— according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."

 

[whitepug6]

She didn't apply for the job under these circumstances. The job has now changed.

It is up to her admin to fire her if she doesn't follow the law.

I respect her position and have no respect for those who continue to choose Christians to flaunt our county's new morality.

The media and her admin are milking this for what it's worth.

Just fire her. She can get another job. She will have earned it.

Maybe she could get a job as a marriage counselor. She's got lots of experience with marriages, 4 of them.

 

[LumpLump]

Her faith only enters into it when she decides that she is the arbiter of the law.

Exactly!

First of all, she's not being jailed because of her faith, even though many try to claim that. She is being jailed because she will not follow the law. The judge even tried to make reasonable accommodations for her by interviewing those working for her and all but her son saying they would sign the licenses. Brought her back into court afterwards, she refused to allow them to do that. That was a reasonable accommodation. By her refusing, from that point on, this is not about her faith at all, she blew that defense, imo, it is about her not following the law and doing her job the taxpayers pay her to do. It is about attention, possible $$ coming from various sources, etc. She seemed to have no problem issuing licenses to those that have been divorced.

If she can't agree to let those others sign licenses, then she needs to resign. She says she won't. Then let her sit there till the legislature comes back and impeaches her. I wonder if the Gov can do an executive order to throw her out?

Anyway....................GO DAWGS!.

 

[Fivehade]

Exactly!

First of all, she's not being jailed because of her faith, even though many try to claim that. She is being jailed because she will not follow the law. The judge even tried to make reasonable accommodations for her by interviewing those working for her and all but her son saying they would sign the licenses. Brought her back into court afterwards, she refused to allow them to do that. That was a reasonable accommodation. By her refusing, from that point on, this is not about her faith at all, she blew that defense, imo, it is about her not following the law and doing her job the taxpayers pay her to do. It is about attention, possible $$ coming from various sources, etc. She seemed to have no problem issuing licenses to those that have been divorced.

If she can't agree to let those others sign licenses, then she needs to resign. She says she won't. Then let her sit there till the legislature comes back and impeaches her. I wonder if the Gov can do an executive order to throw her out?

Anyway....................GO DAWGS!.

At this point, she's only perverting Christianity in order to spread a message of hate . A message shared by an awful lot of ignorant people in our country

 

[CountryClubDawg]

Sorry. She swore an oath that she would uphold the US Constitution and the constitution of the commonwealth of Kentucky above all other considerations, including fundamentalist Christianity. As the federal judge noted, "oaths mean something."

This is the oath (Note the dueling references): "I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ——————— according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."

So hypocritical. Wow! Your President also gave an oath to uphold the US Constitution, but that doesn't stop him from selective persecution when it comes to illegal immigration, or the fact many elected officials are allowing sanctuary cities. You lunatic lefties only adhere to the Constitution when it benefits your ideology. You, whitepug, are the most intellectually dishonest person on this board.

The 1st Amendment exists to protect individuals and their religious liberty from the Federal Government, which includes district courts. This is the problem we have when 9 lawyers dress in black robes who impose their ideological will on America. The SCOTUS on many occasions has over stepped their pounds, this is just another case in point. And another point, to start off with two Supreme Justices should have recused themselves from this case, because of a conflict of interest, before this ever started; both Kagan and Ginsburg performed gay marriages in the past. A 5-4 decision. It's the courts that are out of control, abusing their power, and nullifying the rule of law, not Kim Davis.

Kim Davis is an elected official, but what you are failing to mention is she is an elected Democrat. The lunatic left is now persecuting (eating) their own. How ironic.

One last point... we wouldn't be having this conversation if Kim Davis were a burka wearing Muslim.

 

[HeulenHund2]

So hypocritical. Wow! Your President also gave an oath to uphold the US Constitution, but that doesn't stop him from selective persecution when it comes to illegal immigration, or the fact many elected officials are allowing sanctuary cities. You lunatic lefties only adhere to the Constitution when it benefits your ideology. You, whitepug, are the most intellectually dishonest person on this board.

The 1st Amendment exists to protect individuals and their religious liberty from the Federal Government, which includes district courts. This is the problem we have when 9 lawyers dress in black robes who impose their ideological will on America. The SCOTUS on many occasions has over stepped their pounds, this is just another case in point. And another point, to start off with two Supreme Justices should have recused themselves from this case, because of a conflict of interest, before this ever started; both Kagan and Ginsburg performed gay marriages in the past. A 5-4 decision. It's the courts that are out of control, abusing their power, and nullifying the rule of law, not Kim Davis.

Kim Davis is an elected official, but what you are failing to mention is she is an elected Democrat. The lunatic left is now persecuting (eating) their own. How ironic.

One last point... we wouldn't be having this conversation if Kim Davis were a burka wearing Muslim.

Please find a single case of a ''burka wearing Muslim'' holding an elective office similar to this magistrate position.
It's ridiculous to pretend there's some favoritism toward Muslims in this country.

 

[CountryClubDawg]

Please find a single case of a ''burka wearing Muslim'' holding an elective office similar to this magistrate position.
It's ridiculous to pretend there's some favoritism toward Muslims in this country.

C'mon, man! Where did I say there was an elected burka wearing Muslim in a magistrate position? Reading comprehension is your friend.

Now, I double dog dare you to watch the below, it's only 5:48 minutes. You may just learn something:

 

[two dawgs]

She didn't apply for the job under these circumstances. The job has now changed.

It is up to her admin to fire her if she doesn't follow the law.

I respect her position and have no respect for those who continue to choose Christians to flaunt our county's new morality.

The media and her admin are milking this for what it's worth.

Just fire her. She can get another job. She will have earned it.

She is an elected official. There has to be a voter recall

 

[Fivehade]

C'mon, man! Where did I say there was an elected burka wearing Muslim in a magistrate position? Reading comprehension is your friend.

Now, I double dog dare you to watch the below, it's only 5:48 minutes. You may just learn something:

View embedded media

He said in there that plenty of Muslim bakeries cooked them a faux gay wedding cake. What's your point? That Muslims are ok with gay weddings?

 

[HeulenHund2]

She is an elected official. There has to be a voter recall

No, the state assembly would vote on impeachment. Just like the Senate votes on Presidential impeachments.

 

[HeulenHund2]

C'mon, man! Where did I say there was an elected burka wearing Muslim in a magistrate position? Reading comprehension is your friend.

Now, I double dog dare you to watch the below, it's only 5:48 minutes. You may just learn something:

View embedded media

That is a very weak comparison, I suspect you just Google searched till you found something that sort of worked with your other post. The similarity is practically non-existent though.

 

[whitepug6]

So hypocritical. Wow! Your President also gave an oath to uphold the US Constitution, but that doesn't stop him from selective persecution when it comes to illegal immigration, or the fact many elected officials are allowing sanctuary cities. You lunatic lefties only adhere to the Constitution when it benefits your ideology. You, whitepug, are the most intellectually dishonest person on this board.

The 1st Amendment exists to protect individuals and their religious liberty from the Federal Government, which includes district courts. This is the problem we have when 9 lawyers dress in black robes who impose their ideological will on America. The SCOTUS on many occasions has over stepped their pounds, this is just another case in point. And another point, to start off with two Supreme Justices should have recused themselves from this case, because of a conflict of interest, before this ever started; both Kagan and Ginsburg performed gay marriages in the past. A 5-4 decision. It's the courts that are out of control, abusing their power, and nullifying the rule of law, not Kim Davis.

Kim Davis is an elected official, but what you are failing to mention is she is an elected Democrat. The lunatic left is now persecuting (eating) their own. How ironic.

One last point... we wouldn't be having this conversation if Kim Davis were a burka wearing Muslim.

LOL I can see you are not an attorney, nor do you have any legal education. Your whole post is shot through with inaccuracies. I can't tell if you are a liar or just willfully ignorant of the Constitution.

 

[whitepug6]

C'mon, man! Where did I say there was an elected burka wearing Muslim in a magistrate position? Reading comprehension is your friend.

Now, I double dog dare you to watch the below, it's only 5:48 minutes. You may just learn something:

View embedded media

I learned you are an ignoramus. Thanks for that.

 

[whitepug6]

She didn't apply for the job under these circumstances. The job has now changed.

It is up to her admin to fire her if she doesn't follow the law.

I respect her position and have no respect for those who continue to choose Christians to flaunt our county's new morality.

The media and her admin are milking this for what it's worth.

Just fire her. She can get another job. She will have earned it.

No one is being jailed for practicing their religion. Someone is being jailed for using the government to force others to practice HER religion.

 

[CountryClubDawg]

I learned you are an ignoramus. Thanks for that.

LOL!

The double standard of the left would be comical if it weren't so blatantly obvious, and pathetic. You lunatic lefty's don't want to follow the rule of law; you only want to follow the law of the left. You hold everyone to a different standard. You say nothing of the breaking of the law by Mayors and Governors, who also gave oaths, when it comes to Sanctuary cities and Sanctuary States. But one little Christian Woman breaks a new, and clearly unconstitutional, law and Katy bar the door, we have to follow the law of the land to the 'T'. You lunatic lefties have zero integrity and are completely intellectually dishonest and the reason you have zero credibility.

 

[HeulenHund2]

LOL!

The double standard of the left would be comical if it weren't so blatantly obvious, and pathetic. You lunatic lefty's don't want to follow the rule of law; you only want to follow the law of the left. You hold everyone to a different standard. You say nothing of the breaking of the law by Mayors and Governors, who also gave oaths, when it comes to Sanctuary cities and Sanctuary States. But one little Christian Woman breaks a new, and clearly unconstitutional, law and Katy bar the door, we have to follow the law of the land to the 'T'. You lunatic lefties have zero integrity and are completely intellectually dishonest and the reason you have zero credibility.

Why is it a certain type is ALWAYS on the wrong side of history ? Your kind fights against every advancement in civil liberties from ending slavery and Jim Crow to allowing women the vote and now allowing gays their equal rights. It's always about ''The Constitution'' or the wishes of our founding fathers.
It's really always about your hate and prejudice against this group and that group. Why not relax and stop being so scared and angry ?

 

[whitepug6]

Why is it a certain type is ALWAYS on the wrong side of history ? Your kind fights against every advancement in civil liberties from ending slavery and Jim Crow to allowing women the vote and now allowing gays their equal rights. It's always about ''The Constitution'' or the wishes of our founding fathers.
It's really always about your hate and prejudice against this group and that group. Why not relax and stop being so scared and angry ?

It appears to have a basis in anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry.
A British medical study indicates that conservatives' brains have larger amygdalas than those of liberals. The amygdala is responsible for stimulating fear and other primitive emotions. Conservatives also have smaller-than-normal anterior cingulates, which are responsible for stimulating courage and optimism.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...litical-views-hard-wired-into-your-brain.html

 

[Rolodawg2011]

LOL I can see you are not an attorney, nor do you have any legal education. Your whole post is shot through with inaccuracies. I can't tell if you are a liar or just willfully ignorant of the Constitution.

U don't know your ass from a fruit jar. He's right. This POS has changed law, written law, ignored law, brok the law..all without consequence . This Lady however has not, she's following Kentucky law which says marriage is between a man and woman.....the SC is not where law is made....or can u sight the statute she has broken ...dumbass

 

[whitepug6]

U don't know your ass from a fruit jar. He's right. This POS has changed law, written law, ignored law, brok the law..all without consequence . This Lady however has not, she's following Kentucky law which says marriage is between a man and woman.....the SC is not where law is made....or can u sight the statute she has broken ...dumbass

Always happy to educate the ignorant like you and the club pro.

She has violated section 3 of 18 US Code 401:

18 US Code 401 - Power of court -
A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
(1)
Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2)
Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3)
Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.


If she continues to refuse, the case will be referred to a US Attorney in Kentucky for prosecution under 18 US Code 402:

Any person, corporation or association willfully disobeying any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States or any court of the District of Columbia, by doing any act or thing therein, or thereby forbidden, if the act or thing so done be of such character as to constitute also a criminal offense under any statute of the United States or under the laws of any State in which the act was committed, shall be prosecuted for such contempt as provided in section 3691 of this title and shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment, or both.

Such fine shall be paid to the United States or to the complainant or other party injured by the act constituting the contempt, or may, where more than one is so damaged, be divided or apportioned among them as the court may direct, but in no case shall the fine to be paid to the United States exceed, in case the accused is a natural person, the sum of $1,000, nor shall such imprisonment exceed the term of six months.

 

[whitepug6]

U don't know your ass from a fruit jar. He's right. This POS has changed law, written law, ignored law, brok the law..all without consequence . This Lady however has not, she's following Kentucky law which says marriage is between a man and woman.....the SC is not where law is made....or can u sight the statute she has broken ...dumbass

The US Attorney also can prosecute her under 18 US Code 242:

Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Would you like to me to teach you anything else? I'm giving you and the club pro a master class in legal studies.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

Always happy to educate the ignorant like you and the club pro.

She has violated section 3 of 18 US Code 401:

18 US Code 401 - Power of court -
A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
(1)
Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2)
Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
(3)
Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.


If she continues to refuse, the case will be referred to a US Attorney in Kentucky for prosecution under 18 US Code 402:

Any person, corporation or association willfully disobeying any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States or any court of the District of Columbia, by doing any act or thing therein, or thereby forbidden, if the act or thing so done be of such character as to constitute also a criminal offense under any statute of the United States or under the laws of any State in which the act was committed, shall be prosecuted for such contempt as provided in section 3691 of this title and shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment, or both.

Such fine shall be paid to the United States or to the complainant or other party injured by the act constituting the contempt, or may, where more than one is so damaged, be divided or apportioned among them as the court may direct, but in no case shall the fine to be paid to the United States exceed, in case the accused is a natural person, the sum of $1,000, nor shall such imprisonment exceed the term of six months.

You moron....THE COURT CAN'T MAKE LAW. There has to BE A LAW before the court can rule on a case. There is NO STATUTE that says FRUITS/DEVIANTS can MARRY......GET IT?

 

[whitepug6]

You moron....THE COURT CAN'T MAKE LAW. There has to BE A LAW before the court can rule on a case. There is NO STATUTE that says FRUITS/DEVIANTS can MARRY......GET IT?

OK, I'll type this slowly so you can understand, low-information Fever Swamper.

There is the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court decided that same-sex marriages come under the protection of the Due Process Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The statute the court clerk has allegedly violated is 18 US Code 242 - Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law. Again, read it above. It's been federal law for almost 150 years.

She is using her position as court clerk (hence the "under color of law" qualifier) to deprive same-sex couples of the right to marry---a right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

You make yourself look more and more foolish when you attempt to argue this.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

OK, I'll type this slowly so you can understand, low-information Fever Swamper.

There is the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court decided that same-sex marriages come under the protection of the Due Process Clause and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The statute the court clerk has allegedly violated is 18 US Code 242 - Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law. Again, read it above. It's been federal law for almost 150 years.

She is using her position as court clerk (hence the "under color of law" qualifier) to deprive same-sex couples of the right to marry---a right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

You make yourself look more and more foolish when you attempt to argue this.

Look you moron, it had not STANDING to change the definition of an institution that has been the exact same thing since the beginning of time. This is what liberals do. The States we and had decided this issue. It didn't go as liberals wanted so they get 5 elitist lawyers to make new law. They pulled BS out of their ass, and it won't stand. But again, you don't understand how the system works. They need a LAW a statute to rule on, they didn't have one. The clerk has a state law and statute to stand on.

You fruits have stirred a hornets nest. Its now swung back towards the Constitution. Liberalism is about to go the way of the wigs. But never fear, I think we should keep a few liberals in Zoo's so to remind ppl just how destructive they are.

 

[CountryClubDawg]

Please, keep up your anti-Christian, anti-Police Officer, anti-Constitution, anti-rule of law, pro-Illegal immigrant, pro-Gay, pro-Violence rhetoric and let me know how it works out for you libs come next November. Why do you think the last two elections were landslide victories for the Congressional Republicans?

 

[PotimusWillie]

Sorry. She swore an oath that she would uphold the US Constitution and the constitution of the commonwealth of Kentucky above all other considerations, including fundamentalist Christianity. As the federal judge noted, "oaths mean something."

This is the oath (Note the dueling references): "I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of ——————— according to law; and I do further solemnly swear (or affirm) that since the adoption of the present Constitution, I, being a citizen of this State, have not fought a duel with deadly weapons within this State nor out of it, nor have I sent or accepted a challenge to fight a duel with deadly weapons, nor have I acted as second in carrying a challenge, nor aided or assisted any person thus offending, so help me God."

Wow, if you haven't been in a duel with a gun you can become an elected official in the State of Kentucky (using chat logic).

And I think its funny that to agree to this oath, it must be honored by God. Wow, what about those Muslim and atheist elected officials? What say all our freedom FROM religion folks? If you were elected, would you say it? Probably hypocritical enough to say it.

It also states "to the best of my ability"........... she doesn't have the ability to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based on her understanding of the Bible.

She should be removed but not arrested. She wouldn't issue marriage licenses, but our President had sex with a cigar and intern and wasn't put in jail...... amazing. He said an oath that he would not put his country in a compromised position...... imagine that.

 

[HeulenHund2]

Wow, if you haven't been in a duel with a gun you can become an elected official in the State of Kentucky (using chat logic).

And I think its funny that to agree to this oath, it must be honored by God. Wow, what about those Muslim and atheist elected officials? What say all our freedom FROM religion folks? If you were elected, would you say it? Probably hypocritical enough to say it.

It also states "to the best of my ability"........... she doesn't have the ability to issue a marriage license to a gay couple based on her understanding of the Bible.

She should be removed but not arrested. She wouldn't issue marriage licenses, but our President had sex with a cigar and intern and wasn't put in jail...... amazing. He said an oath that he would not put his country in a compromised position...... imagine that.

There was nothing illegal in a POTUS having an affair with another adult. All western governments stay out of the bedroom, it's a time honored and common sense universal understanding.

The clerk is being released with the understanding she will not interfere with the issuance of marriage licenses by other clerks, that is about as far as the court can go IMO.
If she violates that simple condition, she's asking to be re-arrested.
Say the Kentucky Legislature convenes and doesn't impeach, that would change nothing. They hold no legal sway other than to impeach or not impeach, the rest is the domain of the judiciary branch of government. The Supreme Court has ruled, that takes it out of legislative hands.

 

[HeulenHund2]

Please, keep up your anti-Christian, anti-Police Officer, anti-Constitution, anti-rule of law, pro-Illegal immigrant, pro-Gay, pro-Violence rhetoric and let me know how it works out for you libs come next November. Why do you think the last two elections were landslide victories for the Congressional Republicans?

Gerrymandered districts is the biggest reason for the makeup of Congress. If you take the entirety of Congressional votes it breaks down the middle, with slightly more votes for democrats. It is a terrible mistake to allow parties to carve districts up for political advantage, it makes no sense to me.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

Gerrymandered districts is the biggest reason for the makeup of Congress. If you take the entirety of Congressional votes it breaks down the middle, with slightly more votes for democrats. It is a terrible mistake to allow parties to carve districts up for political advantage, it makes no sense to me.

Wrong. DemocRATs are the inventors of gerrymandered districts. Now its a big problem because Repubs have control of the majority of State governments.....

 

[HeulenHund2]

Wrong. DemocRATs are the inventors of gerrymandered districts. Now its a big problem because Repubs have control of the majority of State governments.....

Where did I go into the history of gerrymandering ? Now that you've brought it up though, it's been happening in both parties for longer than any of us have been alive. It became much worse starting in the 90s and early 2000s when Tom Delay started ''The K St Project'' and other such radically partisan elements within the Republican party though.

Congress needs to correct the problem and redraw districts with no consideration of demographics. District maps should look more like states' maps than pieces to jigsaw puzzles.

 

[whitepug6]

Look you moron, it had not STANDING to change the definition of an institution that has been the exact same thing since the beginning of time. This is what liberals do. The States we and had decided this issue. It didn't go as liberals wanted so they get 5 elitist lawyers to make new law. They pulled BS out of their ass, and it won't stand. But again, you don't understand how the system works. They need a LAW a statute to rule on, they didn't have one. The clerk has a state law and statute to stand on.

You fruits have stirred a hornets nest. Its now swung back towards the Constitution. Liberalism is about to go the way of the wigs. But never fear, I think we should keep a few liberals in Zoo's so to remind ppl just how destructive they are.

The Supreme Court has STANDING to decide what the US Constitution says. And I know low-information types like you require repeated education, so let me restate this simple concept for you. Federal law is superior to state law. If you don't like the ruling, go amend the Constitution. That's the remedy.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

The Supreme Court has STANDING to decide what the US Constitution says. And I know low-information types like you require repeated education, so let me restate this simple concept for you. Federal law is superior to state law. If you don't like the ruling, go amend the Constitution. That's the remedy.

Then point to where the Constitution says fruits have a special right that others don't ? You dumbass, the Constitution says nothing at all about marriage. I mean you truly are a clown

 

[HeulenHund2]

Then point to where the Constitution says fruits have a special right that others don't ? You dumbass, the Constitution says nothing at all about marriage. I mean you truly are a clown

Being issued a marriage license isn't a special right. Even convicts and Trump supporters can get the things.

 

[Rolodawg2011]

Being issued a marriage license isn't a special right. Even convicts and Trump supporters can get the things.

You may be ruled by men in black robes , but most of us aren't. Most of us are intelligent enough to understand the Constitution and know the Court the judicial branch, not the legislative branch.....so I don't expect you to understand.