SCOTUS orders thrice-divorced KY county clerk to issue marriage license

[Rotobeast]

(10-01-2015, 10:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: Oh the church hated ANYTHING that didn't lead to their being more Catholics born!  

Which would be applicable to anyone trying to build a society.

[GMDino]

(10-01-2015, 11:42 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Which would be applicable to anyone trying to build a society.

True.

But it was more about you are a Catholic at birth...because god says so.  So the more babies you have the happier god is.

[GMDino]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/10/01/kentucky-governor-steve-beshear-hits-back-at-county-clerk-kim-davis-for-her-lawsuit-against-him-re-same-sex-marriage-licenses/73137134/

Ky. governor rips Kim Davis lawsuit as 'forlorn'

Quote:"Absurd." "Forlorn." "Obtuse."

Those are some of the words lawyers for Kentucky's Gov. Steve Beshear used to describe a lawsuit that county clerk Kim Davis brought against the governor as she fights to avoid issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Davis, who spent five days in jail for defying a series of federal court orders – and met with Pope Francis when he visited the U.S. last week – alleges that Beshear, a Democrat, "usurped control of Kentucky marriage law" and violated her religious freedom by asking clerks to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized gay marriage nationwide.

"Simply stated, Davis' role is a legal one — not a moral or religious one," Beshear's attorneys wrote in a court document filed Tuesday asking a judge to throw out the suit.

Davis's action, filed in August in U.S. District Court, contends that the governor "took it upon himself ... to set and announce new Kentucky marriage license policies and command county clerks to abide by such policies." The suit claims Beshear's action had the effect of "specifically targeting clerks like Davis who possess certain religious beliefs about marriage."

In late June, when the Supreme Court announced its ruling, Beshear sent a letter to the state's 120 county clerks to spell out how the state intended to react.

"Neither your oath nor the Supreme Court dictates what you must believe. But as elected officials, they do prescribe how we must act," he wrote, and advised the clerks that the state's marriage license template would be updated to remove "bride" and "groom."

But Davis, a Democrat who switched to the Republican Party as the dispute intensified, refused to issue licenses, saying it violated her religious beliefs, and she blames Beshear's letter for her legal troubles.

After four couples sued her, she ignored a series of federal court orders, continued turning couples away and spent five nights in jail for her defiance.

Palmer G. Vance, a lawyer retained by the governor, described Davis' suit as a "meritless assault on the rule of law." Even if Beshear had not instructed clerks to follow the law, the Supreme Court and subsequent court orders required her to do so, he wrote.

"At issue here are marriage licenses issued by the Office of Rowan County Clerk and not Kim Davis individually, as Kim Davis individually has no authority to issue such licenses," he wrote. "The Office of Rowan County Clerk does not have a right to free exercise of religion."

U.S. District Judge David Bunning is expected to rule soon on whether Davis' lawsuit against Beshear can continue. Bunning is the same judge who issued the court order for Davis to issue licenses to gay couples. He released her from jail after five days, saying his order had been satisfied because Davis's deputies were granting the documents,

However, when she returned to her office she altered the licenses, replacing her name and office with the phrase, "pursuant to federal court order."

Richard Hughes, a lawyer for one of Davis' deputies, said in a court filing on Sept. 18 that the Rowan County clerk violated a Bunning's order by making significant changes to marriage license forms that could weaken their legality.

[fredtoast]

"At issue here are marriage licenses issued by the Office of Rowan County Clerk and not Kim Davis individually, as Kim Davis individually has no authority to issue such licenses," he wrote. "The Office of Rowan County Clerk does not have a right to free exercise of religion."



THIS!!!!

[Rotobeast]

(10-01-2015, 02:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "At issue here are marriage licenses issued by the Office of Rowan County Clerk and not Kim Davis individually, as Kim Davis individually has no authority to issue such licenses," he wrote. "The Office of Rowan County Clerk does not have a right to free exercise of religion."



THIS!!!!

Just curious on something and hoping you might know......

When she was sworn in (signed contract or however it goes down), does the oath (or paperwork) include upholding the constitution as it stands at that time, or does it go so far as to have them agree to uphold future amendments/decisions/interpretations ?

Again, I don't know anything about it and wondered if this is where she intended on having some ground.

[fredtoast]

(10-01-2015, 03:03 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Just curious on something and hoping you might know......

When she was sworn in (signed contract or however it goes down), does the oath (or paperwork) include upholding the constitution as it stands at that time, or does it go so far as to have them agree to uphold future amendments/decisions/interpretations ?

Again, I don't know anything about it and wondered if this is where she intended on having some ground.

I understand what you are trying to say, but neither the Constitution has nor the authority of the Supreme Court have changed she went into office.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-01-2015, 03:03 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Just curious on something and hoping you might know......

When she was sworn in (signed contract or however it goes down), does the oath (or paperwork) include upholding the constitution as it stands at that time, or does it go so far as to have them agree to uphold future amendments/decisions/interpretations ?

Again, I don't know anything about it and wondered if this is where she intended on having some ground.

I'm going with she goes with whatever the constitution says at any time.  So if the constitution were amended to say gay marriage is legal, then she upholds that.  Otherwise no current government employee who takes an oath would have to respect any amendments to the Constitution.  

[GMDino]

(10-01-2015, 03:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I understand what you are trying to say, but neither the Constitution has nor the authority of the Supreme Court have changed she went into office.

(10-01-2015, 04:34 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm going with she goes with whatever the constitution says at any time.  So if the constitution were amended to say gay marriage is legal, then she upholds that.  Otherwise no current government employee who takes an oath would have to respect any amendments to the Constitution.  

That's what I thought too.

Although nothing was amended.  Just the current law was expanded to include SSM.  Or, perhaps better put, the old law could no longer exclude SSM.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-01-2015, 09:48 AM)GMDino Wrote: SSF wants to call it "slick PR" I want to believe he really does feel loving each other and taking care of each other is the right thing to do.  either way this is what I wrote this morning on Facebook:

Your naivete is touching and sad at the same time.

[*bfine32*]

(10-01-2015, 01:18 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Incorrect.  The meeting wasn't known until Davis opened her yap about it.  The pope's handlers then admitted it took place.  With the usual caveats of course.


You doubt wrong.  At the very least it would have been honest.  Divide people how, with your honest beliefs?  So you're essentially saying the pope is a moral coward, consensus!  The pope, who btw has no religious affiliation with any protestant, like Davis, is trying to talk out both sides of his mouth.  A not uncommon occurrence for a religious leader I might add.  If you're going to do something at least have the balls to own it.  Don't wait until someone else spills the beans to acknowledge that it happened.  In any event it puts the extreme lie to the current con man's exclamation to, "do unto others as you'd have them do to you."  Unless discriminating and lying are how you'd like to be treated, if so then have at it.

So the Pope is to be disrespected because he didn't tweet out about his meeting with Davis or post it on his Facebook page? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2015, 01:27 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So the Pope is to be disrespected because he didn't tweet out about his meeting with Davis or post it on his Facebook page? 

If you don't understand why meeting with her in a clandestine fashion is cowardly given the current climate then you're not worth the time trying to explain it to you.

[*bfine32*]

(10-02-2015, 01:30 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you don't understand why meeting with her in a clandestine fashion is cowardly given the current climate then you're not worth the time trying to explain it to you.

Okey Doke; back to your segway.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2015, 01:32 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Okey Doke; back to your segway.

Way to address the point being made.  Not exactly the moral courage I expect from a veteran.

[*bfine32*]

(10-02-2015, 01:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Way to address the point being made.  Not exactly the moral courage I expect from a veteran.

You made no point; only assumed superiority.



Don't start none.............won't be none. 

[fredtoast]

(10-02-2015, 01:27 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So the Pope is to be disrespected because he didn't tweet out about his meeting with Davis or post it on his Facebook page? 

It is not just that he did not publicize it.  It is more about the fact that at first he refused to even admit it happened.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/us/county-clerk-kim-davis-who-denied-gay-couples-visited-pope.html?_r=0


Vatican officials initially would not confirm that the meeting occurred, finally doing so on Wednesday afternoon, while refusing to discuss any details.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(10-02-2015, 01:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You made no point; only assumed superiority.



Don't start none.............won't be none. 

Keep pretending that, and pretending you're not a moral coward.  No matter what you think of em I've never dodged points, you... not so much.

[*bfine32*]

(10-02-2015, 01:38 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It is not just that he did not publicize it.  It is more about the fact that at first he refused to even admit it happened.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/us/county-clerk-kim-davis-who-denied-gay-couples-visited-pope.html?_r=0


Vatican officials initially would not confirm that the meeting occurred, finally doing so on Wednesday afternoon, while refusing to discuss any details.

The Vatican most likely thought that a meeting between the 2 was none of the public's business. Doesn't make him a coward as others would assert.

However, I do remember how you and others called Huckabee courageous because he made sure his meetings with Davis were pubic knowledge.    

[*bfine32*]

(10-02-2015, 01:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Keep pretending that, and pretending you're not a moral coward.  No matter what you think of em I've never dodged points, you... not so much.

Enough about me. 

I see you are not assuming superiority again. 

[fredtoast]

(10-02-2015, 01:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The Vatican most likely thought that a meeting between the 2 was none of the public's business.

Even when the person he met with was trying to make it national news?

Who was he trying to protect by keeping it secret?

[*bfine32*]

(10-02-2015, 01:45 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Even when the person he met with was trying to make it national news?

Who was he trying to protect by keeping it secret?  

Who said he was trying to protect anyone?

I see you failed to give your opinion of Huckabee making his meetings so well known