Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[traderdan]

How many here....believe that the Supreme court has the power to write law??

 

[jamil]

How many here....believe that the Supreme court has the power to write law??

That point is moot don't you think?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

How many here....believe that the Supreme court has the power to write law??

It doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the guys with guns, handcuffs, and the keys to the jail cells think.

 

[mrjarrell]

How many here....believe that the Supreme court has the power to write law??

They did not "write law". They struck down existing laws that forbade marriage equality for all adult citizens. That is well within their powers and responsibilities to do.

 

[traderdan]

Kim..A Democrat asks..."Under what law am I authorized to issue a marriage licence to a homosexual couple?"

 

[traderdan]

They did not "write law". They struck down existing laws that forbade marriage equality for all adult citizens. That is well within their powers and responsibilities to do.

And issued no law forcing Kim to issue a licence. Kentucky state constitution forbids it.

 

[traderdan]

Until the time comes....Eventually we must decide how far we will be beaten down.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Until the time comes....Eventually we must decide how far we will be beaten down.

Don't worry, Dan...there are people ready and willing to decide that for you.

The judge is entitled to throw her shariah loving ass under the jail.

 

[mrjarrell]

And issued no law forcing Kim to issue a licence. Kentucky state constitution forbids it.

No, it does not forbid it anymore. The SCOTUS decision struck those down. She has to issue a license due to the fact that it is NOT illegal and marriage laws cover all citizens of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, (and other states). She, and other clerks across the state, were told by the governor to issue the licenses and the courts have consistently backed that decision up.

 

[traderdan]

Ted Cruz made a good statement on the matter...wish I could copy and paste...

 

[PaulF]

How many here....believe that the Supreme court has the power to write law??

I see what you are getting at...but the Supremes didn't write any laws, they classified laws prohibiting same-sex marriage as unconstitutional...there is a difference.

"The will of the people" doesn't apply when it is being used as a bludgeon against a minority, which in this case it was.

If same-sex marriage harms anyone (and I argue that it does not), it only harms those who consent to engage in the act. Those people who chose to engage in that act should be free to do so...unless it creates an undue burden (ie: measurable harm) for the rest of society.

Think about it: A law against gay marriage doesn't protect anyone...Nobody wakes up in a hospital gay married. Nobody gets gay married to death...you can't get force-gay married. These laws only limit freedom...other people's freedom.

What you think is "icky" or your holy book says is "unclean" matters only to you...these are not basis for limiting other's freedoms.

At the end of the day, this is about control...and the loss thereof. Right?

 

[jblomenberg16]

So...how long until a gay couple tries to do the same thing at a church? I would bet within 6 months there will be another high profile case like this where a suit will be filed because a church refuses to perform a ceremony.


Also, I haven't read all of the info on this case yet. Was the gay couple in question resident to this county, or non residents that knew it would cause a stink by going to her? From far away this sure stinks like it was all a set up to force a court to make a decision, thus further legislating from the bench.

 

[HoughMade]

Oaths were made to be broken.

[video=youtube;aNi5256dhvM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNi5256dhvM&bpctr=1441310020[/video]

More than a little over dramatic. No one is forcing her to deny her religious beliefs. They're simply saying that if she believes that she can't issue the licenses due to her beliefs, she has to giver up her $80,000/year job where she is paid to issue licenses.

It seems that you can put a price on principle.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So...how long until a gay couple tries to do the same thing at a church? I would bet within 6 months there will be another high profile case like this where a suit will be filed because a church refuses to perform a ceremony.


Also, I haven't read all of the info on this case yet. Was the gay couple in question resident to this county, or non residents that knew it would cause a stink by going to her? From far away this sure stinks like it was all a set up to force a court to make a decision, thus further legislating from the bench.

There are already churches that will marry homosexuals. The true analogy to this case will be, much like the infamous wedding cake bakers, why don't the homosexuals just go to a church that will "marry" them and leave this one alone?

 

[HoughMade]

So...how long until a gay couple tries to do the same thing at a church? I would bet within 6 months there will be another high profile case like this where a suit will be filed because a church refuses to perform a ceremony...

Throw some sand on the slippery slope. Of course someone will try it, but the court decision specifically says that churches do not have to participate.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

More than a little over dramatic. No one is forcing her to deny her religious beliefs. They're simply saying that if she believes that she can't issue the licenses due to her beliefs, she has to giver up her $80,000/year job where she is paid to issue licenses.

It seems that you can put a price on principle.

I maybe being duped but if you've read the articles of her being interviewed, she's not doing this because she wants to keep a cushy job.

 

[HoughMade]

I maybe being duped but if you've read the articles of her being interviewed, she's not doing this because she wants to keep a cushy job.

...and whenever I examine someone under oath, I know for certain they are telling the truth.

I do not doubt the sincerity of her beliefs. However, I wonder where, in that area with her background, she can come close to $80k a year + gvt. benefits. I'm left concluding that it is not wholly irrelevant.

 

[jbombelli]

I think I'm going to run for County Clerk. If I win I'm only going to issue marriage licenses to those people that the dark lord Cthulhu approves of.

 

[PaulF]

I think I'm going to run for County Clerk. If I win I'm only going to issue marriage licenses to those people that the dark lord Cthulhu approves of.

Finally!

 

[traderdan]

I see what you are getting at...but the Supremes didn't write any laws, they classified laws prohibiting same-sex marriage as unconstitutional...there is a difference.

"The will of the people" doesn't apply when it is being used as a bludgeon against a minority, which in this case it was.

If same-sex marriage harms anyone (and I argue that it does not), it only harms those who consent to engage in the act. Those people who chose to engage in that act should be free to do so...unless it creates an undue burden (ie: measurable harm) for the rest of society.

Think about it: A law against gay marriage doesn't protect anyone...Nobody wakes up in a hospital gay married. Nobody gets gay married to death...you can't get force-gay married. These laws only limit freedom...other people's freedom.

What you think is "icky" or your holy book says is "unclean" matters only to you...these are not basis for limiting other's freedoms.

At the end of the day, this is about control...and the loss thereof. Right?

See it however you will...the justices continually violate their authority, in constitutional light. No one has" bludgeoned" homosexual couples with these laws, IMO, they have bashed their own heads against a wall to prove a point, and society is too weak and ignorant to recognize the long term ramifications of removing the wall.