Kim Davis

It's never a positive outcome when the Federal Court system runs roughshod.

As long as I've been alive, the 3 branches of the government have failed to play their roles properly. It's all a cluster****. The interesting thing is that POTUS and SCOTUS constantly overstep their bounds, and the legislative branch allows them to do it, so they can play politics. They get to go to war without voting on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Citizens in that county should be asking why they're paying taxes for services not provided.

Absolutely, and if in KY the state law mandates a clerk issue licenses they need to be the ones forcing her to issue them or move to impeach her.
 
Absolutely, and if in KY the state law mandates a clerk issue licenses they need to be the ones forcing her to issue them or move to impeach her.

Yep. I'm not sure of the law in KY, but in many (most) states the county clerk's office is the only place to obtain the license. Perhaps certain judges might be able to grant them, but not sure.
 
Yep. I'm not sure of the law in KY, but in many (most) states the county clerk's office is the only place to obtain the license. Perhaps certain judges might be able to grant them, but not sure.

I've been looking and can't find out if KY mandates issuance.
 
So do people think she's actually following her religion, or making it up as she goes? I don't remember "thou shalt not issue marriage licenses to gays". I do remember "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
So do people think she's actually following her religion, or making it up as she goes? I don't remember "thou shalt not issue marriage licenses to gays". I do remember "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's."

Don't know nor do I care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
So do people think she's actually following her religion, or making it up as she goes? I don't remember "thou shalt not issue marriage licenses to gays". I do remember "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's."

Seriously why do you care so much? You don't live in KY. I thought libertarians want small government and for others to stay out of their business. She is an elected official in a small county in KY, why not allow the local voters to deal with it. The courts and voters will eventually figure it out
 
Pretty much.

However it is a big deal considering she wasn't violating the SCOTUS ruling yet the Federal Courts intervened anyway. All these libertarians and anarchist we have in here and none seem to give a **** about that. Funny, no?

Why do you say she was not violating the SCOTUS ruling? I imagine your position rests absolutely on the fact that she was refusing to issue any marriage licenses, not just marriage license for homosexuals.

This might have actually been a legitimate challenge on her part had she not ever opened her mouth letting persons know that her decision not to issue any marriage licenses was because she could not issue marriage licenses to homosexuals.

It really is about as open and shut a case as exists. What is interesting, now, is what she will do when she goes back to work. Will she still refuse to issue licenses because she is ultimately accountable to her living god, or will she now issue all licenses?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
This is kind of interesting. Found it because I was wondering when marriage became a legal matter

13 Facts on the History of Marriage

There are some great books on the history of marriage, however, no one seems to sum up the institution, especially with regard to fidelity and chastity, better than David Hume:

If any difficulty attend this system concerning the laws of nature and nations, it will be with regard to the universal approbation or blame, which follows their observance or transgression, and which some may not think sufficiently explained from the general interests of society. To remove, as far as possible, all scruples of this kind, I shall here consider another set of duties, viz, the modesty and chastity which belong to the fair sex: And I doubt not but these virtues will be found to be still more conspicuous instances of the operation of those principles, which I have insisted on.

There are some philosophers, who attack the female virtues with great vehemence, and fancy they have gone very far in detecting popular errors, when they can show, that there is no foundation in nature for all that exterior modesty, which we require in the expressions, and dress, and behaviour of the fair sex. I believe I may spare myself the trouble of insisting on so obvious a subject, and may proceed, without farther preparation, to examine after what manner such notions arise from education, from the voluntary conventions of men, and from the interest of society.

Whoever considers the length and feebleness of human infancy, with the concern which both sexes naturally have for their offspring, will easily perceive, that there must be an union of male and female for the education of the young, and that this union must be of considerable duration. But in order to induce the men to impose on themselves this restraint, and undergo chearfully all the fatigues and expences, to which it subjects them, they must believe, that the children are their own, and that their natural instinct is not directed to a wrong object, when they give a loose to love and tenderness. Now if we examine the structure of the human body, we shall find, that this security is very difficult to be attained on our part; and that since, in the copulation of the sexes, the principle of generation goes from the man to the woman, an error may easily take place on the side of the former, though it be utterly impossible with regard to the latter. From this trivial and anatomical observation is derived that vast difference betwixt the education and duties of the two sexes.

Were a philosopher to examine the matter a priori, he would reason after the following manner. Men are induced to labour for the maintenance and education of their children, by the persuasion that they are really their own; and therefore it is reasonable, and even necessary, to give them some security in this particular. This security cannot consist entirely in the imposing of severe punishments on any transgressions of conjugal fidelity on the part of the wife; since these public punishments cannot be inflicted without legal proof, which it is difficult to meet with in this subject. What restraint, therefore, shall we impose on women, in order to counter-balance so strong a temptation as they have to infidelity? There seems to be no restraint possible, but in the punishment of bad fame or reputation; a punishment, which has a mighty influence on the human mind, and at the same time is inflicted by the world upon surmizes, and conjectures, and proofs, that would never be received in any court of judicature. In order, therefore, to impose a due restraint on the female sex, we must attach a peculiar degree of shame to their infidelity, above what arises merely from its injustice, and must bestow proportionable praises on their chastity.

But though this be a very strong motive to fidelity, our philosopher would quickly discover, that it would not alone be sufficient to that purpose. All human creatures, especially of the female sex, are apt to over-look remote motives in favour of any present temptation: The temptation is here the strongest imaginable: Its approaches are insensible and seducing: And a woman easily finds, or flatters herself she shall find, certain means of securing her reputation, and preventing all the pernicious consequences of her pleasures. It is necessary, therefore, that, beside the infamy attending such licences, there should be some preceding backwardness or dread, which may prevent their first approaches, and may give the female sex a repugnance to all expressions, and postures, and liberties, that have an immediate relation to that enjoyment.

Such would be the reasonings of our speculative philosopher: But I am persuaded, that if he had not a perfect knowledge of human nature, he would be apt to regard them as mere chimerical speculations, and would consider the infamy attending infidelity, and backwardness to all its approaches, as principles that were rather to be wished than hoped for in the world. For what means, would he say, of persuading mankind, that the transgressions of conjugal duty are more infamous than any other kind of injustice, when it is evident they are more excusable, upon account of the greatness of the temptation? And what possibility of giving a backwardness to the approaches of a pleasure, to which nature has inspired so strong a propensity; and a propensity that it is absolutely necessary in the end to comply with, for the support of the species?

But speculative reasonings, which cost so much pains to philosophers, are often formed by the world naturally, and without reflection: As difficulties, which seem unsurmountable in theory, are easily got over in practice. Those, who have an interest in the fidelity of women, naturally disapprove of their infidelity, and all the approaches to it. Those, who have no interest, are carried along with the stream. Education takes possession of the ductile minds of the fair sex in their infancy. And when a general rule of this kind is once established, men are apt to extend it beyond those principles, from which it first arose. Thus batchelors, however debauched, cannot chuse but be shocked with any instance of lewdness or impudence in women. And though all these maxims have a plain reference to generation, yet women past child-bearing have no more privilege in this respect, than those who are in the flower of their youth and beauty. Men have undoubtedly an implicit notion, that all those ideas of modesty and decency have a regard to generation; since they impose not the same laws, with the same force, on the male sex, where that reason takes nor place. The exception is there obvious and extensive, and founded on a remarkable difference, which produces a clear separation and disjunction of ideas. But as the case is not the same with regard to the different ages of women, for this reason, though men know, that these notions are founded on the public interest, yet the general rule carries us beyond the original principle, and makes us extend the notions of modesty over the whole sex, from their earliest infancy to their extremest old-age and infirmity.

Courage, which is the point of honour among men, derives its merit, in a great measure, from artifice, as well as the chastity of women; though it has also some foundation in nature, as we shall see afterwards.

As to the obligations which the male sex lie under, with regard to chastity, we may observe, that according to the general notions of the world, they bear nearly the same proportion to the obligations of women, as the obligations of the law of nations do to those of the law of nature. It is contrary to the interest of civil society, that men should have an entire liberty of indulging their appetites in venereal enjoyment: But as this interest is weaker than in the case of the female sex, the moral obligation, arising from it, must be proportionably weaker. And to prove this we need only appeal to the practice and sentiments of all nations and ages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I could be mistaken, but I do believe you have Internet.
Maybe I do, so maybe I looked him up. Josh Duggar isn't who I thought he was. I thought that he was the guy on tv with all the wives. Turns out he's the guy with all the girlfriends. Either way, what he and Kim Davis do don't affect me in any way.
 
Seriously why do you care so much? You don't live in KY. I thought libertarians want small government and for others to stay out of their business. She is an elected official in a small county in KY, why not allow the local voters to deal with it. The courts and voters will eventually figure it out

Libertarians want her to shut up and do her job, and stop discriminating based on her religious beliefs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
Why do you say she was not violating the SCOTUS ruling? I imagine your position rests absolutely on the fact that she was refusing to issue any marriage licenses, not just marriage license for homosexuals.

This might have actually been a legitimate challenge on her part had she not ever opened her mouth letting persons know that her decision not to issue any marriage licenses was because she could not issue marriage licenses to homosexuals.

It really is about as open and shut a case as exists. What is interesting, now, is what she will do when she goes back to work. Will she still refuse to issue licenses because she is ultimately accountable to her living god, or will she now issue all licenses?

That makes no difference. If she would have proclaimed I have been married 10 times and no longer believe in marriage would the federal courts been justified?
 
Thanks

So she's not discriminating, she's refusing to do her job, and then she went to jail for that.

Just as I thought, it's not a big deal. Do your job or quit.
She didn't go to jail for not doing her job. If they sent government employees to jail for that, they would need a bigger jail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
huck_davis_twitter-410x220.jpg
Hubby knows hillbilly fashion
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Seriously why do you care so much? You don't live in KY. I thought libertarians want small government and for others to stay out of their business. She is an elected official in a small county in KY, why not allow the local voters to deal with it. The courts and voters will eventually figure it out

I am letting them deal with it. You advocated I knock doors to get my way. I refused because I don't care. Now you are saying I should leave it alone and not care so much.

Make up your mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people

VN Store



Back
Top