Kim Davis

#476
#476
AirVol said:
So I can have multiple wives? Or do I have to wait til the SCOTUS gives their "opinion" on what it means?
Click to expand...


I'm not aware of anyone seriously arguing that polygamy is entitled to equal protection.

But you see, that is the pathetic bait and switch relied upon by yahoos like Huckabee and his ilk. "Congress did not affirmatively pass a law allowing it or disallowing it, therefore there is no actual law for the Court to interpret! They are just making it up!"

Wrong. Way wrong. Incredibly hugely wrong.

Equal protection is codified --and in the Constitution. The Court held that state laws and practices which would not allow same sex marriage are in violation of that Constitutional right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#477
#477
n_huffhines said:
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."
Click to expand...

Come to think of it, Julius sounds like a gay name.
 
#478
#478
1972 Grad said:
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.
Click to expand...

She was charged with contempt, right? It's based on her not doing her job? Am I wrong or are you playing semantics?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#479
#479
lawgator1 said:
I'm not aware of anyone seriously arguing that polygamy is entitled to equal protection.

But you see, that is the pathetic bait and switch relied upon by yahoos like Huckabee and his ilk. "Congress did not affirmatively pass a law allowing it or disallowing it, therefore there is no actual law for the Court to interpret! They are just making it up!"

Wrong. Way wrong. Incredibly hugely wrong.

Equal protection is codified --and in the Constitution. The Court held that state laws and practices which would not allow same sex marriage are in violation of that Constitutional right.
Click to expand...

Surprisingly I agree but you know that challenge is coming and SCOTUS will look like fools if they do not apply the same logic.
 
#480
#480
lawgator1 said:
I'm not aware of anyone seriously arguing that polygamy is entitled to equal protection.

But you see, that is the pathetic bait and switch relied upon by yahoos like Huckabee and his ilk. "Congress did not affirmatively pass a law allowing it or disallowing it, therefore there is no actual law for the Court to interpret! They are just making it up!"

Wrong. Way wrong. Incredibly hugely wrong.

Equal protection is codified --and in the Constitution. The Court held that state laws and practices which would not allow same sex marriage are in violation of that Constitutional right.
Click to expand...

First, let me say people should be allowed to marry whomever they want.

That being said, marrying multiple spouses, or marrying a relative cannot be supported on grounds of anti-discrimination.

No group is allowed to have multiple wives, so nobody is being discriminated against.

No group is allowed to marry siblings, so nobody is being discriminated against.
 
#482
#482
hog88 said:
Surprisingly I agree but you know that challenge is coming and SCOTUS will look like fools if they do not apply the same logic.
Click to expand...


That is the beauty of certiorari discretion. Someone will bring that suit, and lose in the federal district court. They will then file an appeal, to the US Circuit Court of Appeals, which will affirm the district court.

Then, the plaintiff will seek certiorari review in the Supreme Court, and they will decline to hear the case.

Sleep well, my friend. Neither polygamy nor NAMBLA are going to get anywhere on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#483
#483
n_huffhines said:
She was charged with contempt, right? It's based on her not doing her job? Am I wrong or are you playing semantics?
Click to expand...

She went to jail because the federal courts were not going to have their self proclaimed omnipotent power challenged. So they went after an ignorant hillbilly from KY instead of the state of KY.
 
#484
#484
n_huffhines said:
She was charged with contempt, right? It's based on her not doing her job? Am I wrong or are you playing semantics?
Click to expand...
Was the charge "not doing her job," or contempt of court? Did Bill Clinton get impeached for lies to the grand jury, or lies about an affair?
 
#485
#485
n_huffhines said:
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.
Click to expand...

You posting multiple pictures making fun of her shows me you care. She is an elected official and her job requirements changed. Now she doesn't want to do the job but she was elected so if she doesn't want to resign, then the local voters need to do start getting some signatures.
 
#486
#486
lawgator1 said:
That is the beauty of certiorari discretion. Someone will bring that suit, and lose in the federal district court. They will then file an appeal, to the US Circuit Court of Appeals, which will affirm the district court.

Then, the plaintiff will seek certiorari review in the Supreme Court, and they will decline to hear the case.

Sleep well, my friend. Neither polygamy nor NAMBLA are going to get anywhere on this.
Click to expand...

Just where did I or anyone mention your organization?

You may be correct on polygamy and the procedures SCOTUS will use to escape the case. It however will not prevent them from looking like foolish hypocrites.
 
#488
#488
hog88 said:
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?
Click to expand...

It actually does make a difference. Your words can be taken by the courts to signify your intent in your actions.

Like I said earlier, she stood up for what she believed in and did so in the face of the government and impending government sanctions. For that, I admire her. But, she does not have a legal leg to stand on in the fight.

Whether it is right or wrong that she does not have a legal leg to stand on is certainly up for debate; however, as law is currently written, interpreted, and understood in the US, the question of whether or not what she did was actually illegally has a clear answer and that answer is 'yes'.
 
#491
#491
VKAman said:
"It won't kill them" is a horrible horrible defense. We're debating the principle--whether Kim Davis or the couples should be the side inconvenienced by her stubbornness--not about how personally important to you that principle is.
Click to expand...
Not only will it not kill the groom and groom, who wouldn't want to paint their Malty-Poos' toe nails, drop the top on their powder blue Beetle convertible, and take a fabulous cruise in Eastern Kentucky in the Fall of the year on their big day?
 
#492
#492
VolsNSkinsFan said:
You posting multiple pictures making fun of her shows me you care. She is an elected official and her job requirements changed. Now she doesn't want to do the job but she was elected so if she doesn't want to resign, then the local voters need to do start getting some signatures.
Click to expand...

Yeah, usually comedians are the ones who care the most....

I didn't even venture into this thread until there were 400+ posts. How long you been in here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#494
#494
1972 Grad said:
Not only will it not kill the groom and groom, who wouldn't want to paint their Malty-Poos' toe nails, drop the top on their powder blue Beetle convertible, and take a fabulous cruise in Eastern Kentucky in the Fall of the year on their big day?
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#496
#496
therealUT said:
It actually does make a difference. Your words can be taken by the courts to signify your intent in your actions.

Like I said earlier, she stood up for what she believed in and did so in the face of the government and impending government sanctions. For that, I admire her. But, she does not have a legal leg to stand on in the fight.

Whether it is right or wrong that she does not have a legal leg to stand on is certainly up for debate; however, as law is currently written, interpreted, and understood in the US, the question of whether or not what she did was actually illegally has a clear answer and that answer is 'yes'.
Click to expand...

I think I found that KY law requires clerks to issue a marriage license;

402.080 Marriage license required
--
Who may issue.
No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by
the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is
eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her
application
in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.
Effective:
July 13, 1984
History:
Amended 1984 Ky. Acts ch. 279, sec. 1, effective July 13, 1984. Amended 1980 Ky. Acts ch. 74, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1980.Amended 1978 Ky. Acts ch.
384, sec. 518, effective June 17, 1978.Amended 1968 Ky. Acts ch. 100, sec. 14. Amended 1948 Ky. Acts ch. 42, sec. 1. Recodified 1942 Ky. Acts ch. 208, sec. 1,
effective October 1, 1942, from Ky. Stat. sec
. 2105.
Click to expand...

That would mean that in this case (only talking about this case) what she was doing or not doing was in violation of KY law. The Governor and/or Commonwealths Attorney should have been the ones to go after her through state courts. If they refused then the Federal Courts should have and would have been right in finding them in contempt. This wasn't a federal issue!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top