We all know the story of who Kim Davis is and what she has done (refused to do). Kim Davis does not want her name or office associated with marriages that she finds wrong.

What people aren't talking about is the choice that Kim Davis could have made to fix her situation within Kentucky law. Of course, the US Supreme Court has issued their ruling and federal judges are obligated to see the ruling fulfilled. They cannot, however, impose a requirement as to how the ruling is fulfilled. On that note, some states have changed their marriage laws to state that marriage licenses are issued under the authority of the state and may be issued by numerous officials. This allows for someone objecting to same-sex marriage to pass the matter onto another qualified authority who would then issue the license under the authority of the state. Kentucky did not choose to make such changes to their laws, but they do have a Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act (similar to the Federal law).

My problem with Kim Davis is that at some point before or after the federal judge ordered her to issue the licenses, she would have gained standing to sue the state of Kentucky for relief. Kentucky courts could then have issued injunctions against the Kentucky marriage laws requiring the the licenses be issued under Kim Davis and/or the authority of her office. This likely would then force Kentucky's legislature to take up the matter in their next session, but the licenses would be issued lawfully without Kim Davis's involvement. She would be free to live out her beliefs within the confines of the federal court order and state law.

My issue with her is simple
She has a job to do and if she changes her life and now has conflicts with her job,she should find a new job.
The job and the responsibilities did not change...she did.

My issue with Kim Davis:

She wasn't doing her fluffing job. It took the god damned SCOTUS and 6 days in jail for her to finally do her fluffing job.

Boo we're still talking about her.

This is important in your life? Do you have something better to do?

Under existing Kentucky law, Kim Davis has a right, as a Kentucky government official, to not take part in issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Under existing US Supreme Court ruling, Kentucky (not Kim Davis or County Clerks in Kentucky) has an obligation to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The proper place to reconcile these conflicting issues is in Kentucky state court.

Kim Davis had and still has the right to seek relief from Kentucky courts. She has not done this.



Matters of interesting applications of the law are important in my life. It is important for all of us to understand the proper and full application of the law.

But Angel. If she did it thru the ky court she wouldn't have had her 15 minutes of fame and had a chance to play the martyr.
For the Pope to actually meet with her is just highlights another failing of the church imo

Its a local issue. Who gives a fluff about small fluffhole america. Feds should respect her being elected and work around it and not squash her precious jesus rights. Thats the right thing to do to move forward. Bashing her for her beliefs corrects nothing and creates a way bigger problem for everyone, except trife, because he is unreasonable and smells like piss.

Blade, I always knew you were an undercover rainbow warrior

"Her beliefs" are all BS just used to make her infamous. The Christian religion also doesn't approve of adultery or divorce and remarriage, but that didn't stop her from doing both.

LOL SUI!!!

They tried to compromise and encouraged her to allow her subordinates to do it instead of her. She refused so she could get her 15 minutes...

http://nationalreport.net/...-released-time-christmas/

"Sources are saying that Kim Davis, the Rowan County clerk who made headlines for refusing same-sex couples marriage licenses, has signed a seven figure book deal with Forever Faith publishing and her memoir I’m a Survivor will be released just in time for Christmas."

lol

How can anyone stand by her at this point? If I were a devout Christian, I would be absolutely insulted and disgusted at this point....

I am a devout Christian, and I agree, Tella...pretty disgusted at this, it's not even about her beliefs anymore. Why the hell are you writing a book when you should continue standing up for your faith? If it's law to do something and you are morally against it, you make it known and do what you can to try to stand for the job responsibilities as well as your beliefs, but if not? Find another job..

a book deal? wtf cashing in I see

is she going to go into her past, and how hypocritical she? oh wait ... born-again christians can apparently ignore their past. but then, her current story couldnt fill a book and has nothing worth reading

4 marriages, an adulterous relatonship, children born out of wedlock .... she is definitely a poster child for what a good christian should be *rolls eyes*

how about treating everyone equally and respectfully? or take a good long look in the mirror and explain how YOU have the right to spout bullfluff about acting under God's authority, especially at the expense of others



ugh, pisses me off i am even posting about her.

Those who cry for tolerance are the first to judge others

My conscience disallows me from following state and federal laws. I can now murder at will without repercussion!

Like many others have said, she is an opportunist.. Not a martyr.

I don't even know why this is a topic of real conversation. For example, Why is it so desirable for gays to have an institution of "marriage"?

Marriage is something that was started off by religion, isn't it? Or am I mistaken? Is there an underlying human need for "recognition" of this "relationship"? or isn't there?

Marriage by it's very nature of creation, belongs to the churches, doesn't it? Therefore, if the state wishes to apply the benefits of and recognition of a state union of individuals for tax related issues, etc.

Is it about the money? Or is it about "destroying" an institution that they truly hate?

there are legal and financial distinctions to marriage. like taxes, wills, and rights. started by religion or not, it has qualifications in todays society. advantages. call it whatever you want, but they want access to those advantages and classifications.

religious people dont like it because it is against their misinterpretation of a 2000 year old fairy tale. divorce is more against the sanctity of marriage than homos are. i think 2 dudes fluffing is disgusting, but i dont think they shouldn't have a right to the legal aspects of partnership. i dont like broccoli either, i dont tell everyone else they shouldnt eat it.


the bitsh should do her job, the one she was elected to do, or step down like the rest of the objectors. you cant have both. she would have been fired from any other job.

OK, that's fine by me. :) Set up a state sponsored term for it, and call it that then. Why force the redefinition of "marriage" down everyone's throats.

What if one day the PC crowd decided that the Telephone should be called something else just "because", would that be cool too? Or the "television", perhaps for the reason that their root it ancient greek, sounds about right, eh? Let's target the greeks next.

that is a bad analogy. renaming an object isnt the same as redefining an idea. terms and ideals are redefined all the time in the name of progress. bigotry shouldnt have any different effect on that fact.

Anyone who doesn't agree with one side or the other is necessarily hateful? Why do the words "bigot" and "bigotry" automatically get pulled out when someone disagrees with someone else? THAT is by definition, bigotry.

Websters dictionary: bigotry - stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Remember when disagreeing was called disagreeing and the fact that you could disagree was called freedom and individual thought? Now we all have to fall lockstep with the vocal majority for fear of being branded as 'hateful'.

For the record, I don't care who marries and believe that ALL government issued privileges, considerations, etc handed to the married are unconstitutional. Marriage, like it or not, is inherently a religious rite. The First Amendment to the US Constitution states (in part) that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" ergo tax policies and other law affecting or affected by religious rite should be struck down by the SCOTUS as their job is primarily to enforce the constitution in application of law. If we want true equality for all peoples, this is the way to have it and not have the debate tainted with quests for financial gain cloaked in the 'pursuit of love'......

/two cents off

your definition literally explained why i called her a bigot.....

So you are a constituent who has been harmed by this lady?

That's a hilarious point of view -- "oh, what? the gays are getting marriage rights now?? SHUT DOWN THE WHOLE SYSTEM, BOYS!"

Understanding the law and its full implications is important whether you are a constituent of this lady or not. All Americans are constituents of the US Constitution/laws and their respective state constitutions/laws. We should all get into the habit of looking into a situation fully and not making a snap judgement.

[quote poster=Angel1; 37647; 686415]

Understanding the law and its full implications is important whether you are a constituent of this lady or not. All Americans are constituents of the US Constitution/laws and their respective state constitutions/laws. We should all get into the habit of looking into a situation fully and not making a snap

So I'm going to go ahead assume no.. you aren't a constituent of Kim Davis since you didn't answer the question. It is a local issue and not a constitutional issue.

I guess since it's a local issue, then it couldn't possibly be repeated in other localities? I suppose none of us will ever see just slightly different issues with the same implications in different localities around the nation? That's an astounding assertion that you've made, ssewellusmc.

Someone not issuing a piece of paper? It is a local issue, one of which does not affect your constitutional right. I guess you need something to fluff about?

Someone failing to use the resources that they have is something that can happen anywhere on just about any issue. I bring this point up because we should all be aware of the little details, like this one, that can change our understanding of situations. Oh and this is a situation that can easily be repeated around the country.

You are assuming every state issues marriage certificates the same way.

Considering she is violating a SCOTUS decision, yes, it's a national issue.

You realize that's how the judicial system works, right? It has to start with a 'local' issue and work it's way up, since the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is incredibly limited(thanks to Marshall).

You do understand that it still doesn't make it a problem for every American citizen because not ever citizen lives in the cesspool that elected her? I guess you assumed all 300M+ citizens live in one county in Kentuky?

You do understand that similar legal cases don't have to involve marriage at all?

I think we get that you don't care about this because it doesn't involve your little part of the world. I refuse to have such a limited point of view.

Even situations that have no implications for you, personally, can still be interesting.

Perhaps I have important things to do and fluffing about someone not doing the job they were elected to do is low on most Americans list of fluff to give a flying crap about. Unless you are a constitutional lawyer who would like to argue precedence in front of SCOTUS for a similiar issue, no one outside of KY should/will really care.

While I don't know that the woman isn't a bigot, I don't believe that refusing to participate in another person's way of life is the same as not tolerating it. Disagreeing doesn't force the person you disagree with to change their view/way of life/whatever. If, on the other hand, you are passing laws that force peoples' hands, asking for certain speech to be silenced, etc, THAT is refusing to tolerate. Disagreement and intolerance are used interchangeably these days but they are not interchangeable. I don't know that this person is doing a good job of her job (or that she isn't) but I do know that extremely few rants I read on the subject (and many subjects of late) are intellectually honest.

Participate in? Does the county clerk have to be gay with the person to issue the certificate?

It was her job. Quit if you don't like it. Period.

kim davis is why the catholics didnt let women be people for two thousand years.

and well fluffing deserved. women and ideas are a recipe for uppity fluffes.

blame tella.

She got married. Cheated. Got pregnant. Divorced. Married again (NOT the father). Divorced. Married the father. Divorced. Married the 2nd guy again. Who the fluff is she to be the moral authority on anything? What if a clerk had refused to issue her a license for her 2nd marriage because divorce goes against their religious beliefs? She's a hypocritical moron who needs to have her soapbox promptly removed and destroyed.

You realize that by fluffing about the guy fluffing about the thing you feel is irrelevant kind of destroys your original premise that you "have important things to do." He's discussing an issue that, at the very least, many people around the world are aware of, and can happen elsewhere regardless of whether or not you want to believe that. You're debating his motivation for discussing the issue. Which is a bigger waste of time? Don't participate in a discussion if you don't see the rationale behind it.

We don't live in caves,so national news is important to a lot of people.

We should care because it is linked to the rest of the country, legally. A NATIONAL court decision was handed down, which means it is applicable at all levels of government. If someone tries to argue against it, the process of said argument has legal ramifications that can impact how similar situations are dealt with in the future. The next time this type of issue arises, regardless of location, the authorities involved will look to this whole BS in randomville Kentucky before proceeding.

That's kind of how the legal system in the US works...

say what?
http://weknowmemes.com/...-eat-here-or-take-out.jpg

Thanks?

seems pretty ambiguous to say "next time this type of issue arises"... "Regardless of location"... The "authorities", involved will look to this previous situation? Exactly what is "kind of" how our legal system works in the U.S.?
Care to explain more specifically? Seems really broad and reeks of rhetoric

We have such terminology now. Civil Unions. Clearly it was a mistake for the government to have ever gotten involved in marriage in the first place. A great example of why separation of church and state is important. Marriage is a religiously defined institution and the definition will vary based on your religious views. So keep government out of it. A Civil Union can be defined by the government as a contractual matter without any biases or preferential treatments. Leave marriages to the people and their churches.

Atryn +1

I thought I was being quite specific. Legal decisions are not made in a vacuum. Situations like this inevitably end up in the courts, and the various parts of our judicial system are constantly observing how each other handle these types of cases. That's how a little 'local' issue ends up making a huge impact at the national level. That's why SCOTUS ended up delivering a ruling about same sex marriage in the first place: it started at the local level and worked it's way up the system.

How is that reeking of rhetoric? As I said, that's how the system works...

Addendum: This was a response to scott saying that this is just a little local issue, so why are people outside of that small local area even considering it. I was pointing out, as I just reiterated, that nearly every major SCOTUS decision starts as a little 'local' issue. It's often hard to tell at the time if a particular situation will expand beyond the initial location and circumstances, but it happens every day, so why NOT talk about it?



Non-religious people get married too, you know. Or people from a variety of religions that do not at all agree with each other. I think the opposite is happening here: Conservative Christians are taking what is and has been a fundamental aspect of HUMANITY for generations and stamping their own label on it, then saying nobody else can touch it. That's like me licking a cookie and saying 'it's mine!'.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage <--show me where it mentions religion?