Kentucky county clerk jailed on contempt charges until she agrees to issue same-sex marriage licenses

[telling tiger 156]

She was imprisoned for disobeying a direct and personalized court order. Same thing would have happened to ANYONE who did the same thing.

She was given ample opportunity to allow other clerks in her office issue them. She told them no. Her last day in court, she was given TWO chances to stay out of custody and do the same thing...

One person put her there. HER.

She is entitled to any belief she would like...She is NOT entitled to withhold a LEGAL government service that ALL taxpayers pay her for.

INCLUDING heterosexual couples....which for some inane reason, you seem to think is a sort of qualifier of some kind....HEY, she discriminated against EVERYONE!!!

This is complete bull**** and you know it. Illegal alien felons walk the streets thanks to the Obama justice department and the democrat party in every sanctuary city in the nation....so no, they don't do this to everyone who violates the law....they chose to do this to her to prove a point...you can kill the citizenry and get away with it..but thou shall not dis the divider in chiefs latest pet project.

Glad you disagree, makes me even more resolute of opinion.....Sorry you can't identify differing subjects.... have that issue often?

So a SCOTUS with a majority R lean, who did Citizens United and Hobby Lobby was rigged for Obama's, "pet project"?

LMAO....speaking of bull****, you have your own shovel. I don't really bother reading a lot of tea billy opinion.....Waste of time.

[Strychnine 1,802]

So you've lost faith in an integral part of our system of checks and balances?

Long ago. I've lost faith in our ability to reason.

Based on?

Other than this?

Roe v. Wade and Citizens United are two of the most egregious. I really don't see the trend heading in a good direction overall.

So you disagree with the Supreme Court. What is your alternative?

[TitanTiger 20,479]

So you've lost faith in an integral part of our system of checks and balances?

Long ago. I've lost faith in our ability to reason.

Based on?

Other than this?

Roe v. Wade and Citizens United are two of the most egregious. I really don't see the trend heading in a good direction overall.

So you disagree with the Supreme Court. What is your alternative?

Being that I lack any significant power of my own, I don't suppose I have one. But that doesn't mean I have to nod and act as if it's all ok that the Supreme Court once again went off the rails.

I simply said that I have lost faith in an integral part of our system. But don't worry, I have even less faith in Congress. And the President doesn't fare much better.

[homersapien 11,370]

It's September 9, 2015, and the issue of whether or not two consenting adults can marry one another still needs to be addressed; here in the bastion of freedom.

Yeah...amazingly, some folks still think words mean something - that "marriage" actually has a real definition, rooted in millennia of human experience, that goes beyond merely "consenting adults" or better yet "whatever we have decided to call it this week."

Does the ability of two homosexuals to marry change what it means to you?

Words aren't defined as "what they mean to each individual."

Yet homosexuals do not appear to apply the same definition to marriage as you do, and the court appears to agree with them. When the legal definition changes, does that affect what it means to you?

The definition didn't change. A legal fiction was created.

Oh good grief. Like it or not, the word marriage is used to designate the civil contract of marriage between two people. Yes, the history has been that legal contract has been until now, applied only to heterosexual couples. So what? The same legal contract is now available to homosexual couples. To say they aren't entitled to it because of the traditional definition of marriage is pure sophistry.

[ShocksMyBrain 9,364]

So, Eye of the Tiger was her martyr speech soundtrack. That's pretty lame.

[Strychnine 1,802]

So you've lost faith in an integral part of our system of checks and balances?

Long ago. I've lost faith in our ability to reason.

Based on?

Other than this?

Roe v. Wade and Citizens United are two of the most egregious. I really don't see the trend heading in a good direction overall.

So you disagree with the Supreme Court. What is your alternative?

Being that I lack any significant power of my own, I don't suppose I have one. But that doesn't mean I have to nod and act as if it's all ok that the Supreme Court once again went off the rails.

I simply said that I have lost faith in an integral part of our system. But don't worry, I have even less faith in Congress. And the President doesn't fare much better.

What rails did they go off of? I certainly do not consider their decision relative to SSM to be a departure from the rails. You may think so, and I may disagree; is that not the ultimate purpose of the Supreme Court?

[TitanTiger 20,479]

Look guys. I should have known better than to even comment. I get irritated when I see remarks that misrepresents the reasons people have for opposing the redefinition of marriage. But it's pointless in a forum like this because no one is going to change their minds.

It's getting late and I don't have the time or energy to really keep rehashing this stuff right now.

[homersapien 11,370]

So you've lost faith in an integral part of our system of checks and balances?

Long ago. I've lost faith in our ability to reason.

Based on?

Other than this?

Roe v. Wade and Citizens United are two of the most egregious. I really don't see the trend heading in a good direction overall.

So you disagree with the Supreme Court. What is your alternative?

Being that I lack any significant power of my own, I don't suppose I have one. But that doesn't mean I have to nod and act as if it's all ok that the Supreme Court once again went off the rails.

I simply said that I have lost faith in an integral part of our system. But don't worry, I have even less faith in Congress. And the President doesn't fare much better.

Gee, that doesn't leave much in the way of options, does it? Presumably you'd find the same problems with any other democratic system.

I hope you you're not suggesting a theocracy. That's exactly what Kim Davis would prefer. She's a member of the Apostolic Pentecostal church who are dominionists.

[Strychnine 1,802]

Look guys. I should have known better than to even comment. I get irritated when I see remarks that misrepresents the reasons people have for opposing the redefinition of marriage. But it's pointless in a forum like this because no one is going to change their minds.

It's getting late and I don't have the time or energy to really keep rehashing this stuff right now.

Nonsense Titan. I can name more than one person that I would rather see you respond in lieu of the other. Even when we disagree, you clearly identify and support your position. That is 100% respectable.

[AUDub 11,147]

Gee, that doesn't leave much in the way of options, does it.

I hope you you're not suggesting a theocracy. That's exactly what Kim Davis would prefer. She's a member of the Apostolic Pentecostal church who are dominionists.

I was not aware she was a dominionist. Yowza.

[homersapien 11,370]

Look guys. I should have known better than to even comment. I get irritated when I see remarks that misrepresents the reasons people have for opposing the redefinition of marriage. But it's pointless in a forum like this because no one is going to change their minds.

It's getting late and I don't have the time or energy to really keep rehashing this stuff right now.

Man, you are really hung up on this "redefinition" idea. I don't get it.

How can you rationalize denying the right to a legal marriage to homosexuals on the basis of not allowing a given word to extend to homosexuals?

Why not?

And how can the word "marriage" be sacrosanct without a religious justification? This is about legal rights afforded to all American citizens. It's not about religion, or at least it cannot be without violating the constitution.

If you think homosexuals are sinners and therefore don't deserve the rights of marriage then just say so. This 'redefinition' argument is just an esoteric work-around to avoid doing so.

[Strychnine 1,802]

Gee, that doesn't leave much in the way of options, does it.

I hope you you're not suggesting a theocracy. That's exactly what Kim Davis would prefer. She's a member of the Apostolic Pentecostal church who are dominionists.

I was not aware she was a dominionist. Yowza.

Surely you see the semblance...

[homersapien 11,370]

Gee, that doesn't leave much in the way of options, does it.

I hope you you're not suggesting a theocracy. That's exactly what Kim Davis would prefer. She's a member of the Apostolic Pentecostal church who are dominionists.

I was not aware she was a dominionist. Yowza.

It was in one of the articles I linked. I hadn't heard it until then either. But it certainly fits with her "answering to a higher authority" comments.

[ShocksMyBrain 9,364]

Buddy decided to attempt to turn my cat into a meme, this was his first submission.

[DKW 86 7,419]

I hate to say it but this really all boils down to "i hate them dang homos."

KD has decided that she will not offer licenses to SSM couples. If she were fair, then she would be denying the right to marry to anyone that wasnt scripturally divorced.

She isnt trying to do that. She is simply denying the legal right to marry to SSM couples only. She has temporarily suspended hetero licensing as well, likely for nothing more than cover for the looming civil trials she is going to lose. If you can prove even ONE case where she denied a license to a non-scripturally divorced couple, i will shut up. But you cant. It isnt true. Fact is, this is nothing more than a really sad story about people wanting to vaguely hide their own ugly discrimination in the cloak of Christianity.

It is just another in a long line of openly discriminatory actions against homosexuals. PERIOD.

She is now tap dancing around the judge's orders by not signing the licenses that her deputies are issuing thereby making them technically not legal in KY. They are being issued by the county, but not by her office and they may at some time in the future be judged not proper or legal. So here we go again. I have a bet with anyone that wants it. She signs ALL the hetero licenses and lets the SSM couples have not legally binding licenses.

http://www.newsweek....t-resign-368666

Davis's attorney, Mat Staver, said the licenses issued by deputy clerks on Friday aren't valid because they don't include her signature. (But the Rowan County attorney and the couples' lawyers said the licenses are valid.)

[AURaptor 1,122]

It's September 9, 2015, and the issue of whether or not two consenting adults can marry one another still needs to be addressed; here in the bastion of freedom.

.

What if it's 3 ? 5 adults? Same discussion?

[Strychnine 1,802]

It's September 9, 2015, and the issue of whether or not two consenting adults can marry one another still needs to be addressed; here in the bastion of freedom.

.

What if it's 3 ? 5 adults? Same discussion?

It is a separate issue, so I would say separate discussion.

[AURaptor 1,122]

It's September 9, 2015, and the issue of whether or not two consenting adults can marry one another still needs to be addressed; here in the bastion of freedom.

.

What if it's 3 ? 5 adults? Same discussion?

It is a separate issue, so I would say separate discussion.

Why is it separate? Some might say that interracial marriage is a separate issue from same-sex marriage. So what's the difference?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Look guys. I should have known better than to even comment. I get irritated when I see remarks that misrepresents the reasons people have for opposing the redefinition of marriage. But it's pointless in a forum like this because no one is going to change their minds.

It's getting late and I don't have the time or energy to really keep rehashing this stuff right now.

There is absolutely no chance you will change your mind? I do not believe that.

At some point, I believe you will side with love, grace, and salvation over, condemnation and control. We practice our faith, not impose it.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

It's September 9, 2015, and the issue of whether or not two consenting adults can marry one another still needs to be addressed; here in the bastion of freedom.

.

What if it's 3 ? 5 adults? Same discussion?

It is a separate issue, so I would say separate discussion.

Why is it separate? Some might say that interracial marriage is a separate issue from same-sex marriage. So what's the difference?

You have a problem with interracial marriage?

[Strychnine 1,802]

It's September 9, 2015, and the issue of whether or not two consenting adults can marry one another still needs to be addressed; here in the bastion of freedom.

.

What if it's 3 ? 5 adults? Same discussion?

It is a separate issue, so I would say separate discussion.

Why is it separate? Some might say that interracial marriage is a separate issue from same-sex marriage. So what's the difference?

Same sex marriage addresses whether or not two homosexual people can marry, just like interracial marriage addresses whether or not two people from different races can marry. Neither address the issue of whether or not anyone can marry more than one person. The quantity of people that can be legally married is not in dispute in this issue, just their identity.

[homersapien 11,370]

It's September 9, 2015, and the issue of whether or not two consenting adults can marry one another still needs to be addressed; here in the bastion of freedom.

.

What if it's 3 ? 5 adults? Same discussion?

It is a separate issue, so I would say separate discussion.

Why is it separate? Some might say that interracial marriage is a separate issue from same-sex marriage. So what's the difference?

Interracial and same sex marriage are legal. Polygamy is not.

I would think someone who constantly claims to have a superior intellect would have instantly recognized the difference. :-\

[homersapien 11,370]

It's September 9, 2015, and the issue of whether or not two consenting adults can marry one another still needs to be addressed; here in the bastion of freedom.

.

What if it's 3 ? 5 adults? Same discussion?

It is a separate issue, so I would say separate discussion.

Why is it separate? Some might say that interracial marriage is a separate issue from same-sex marriage. So what's the difference?

You have a problem with interracial marriage?

Doesn't it fit?

[AURaptor 1,122]

@ Ichy - That's not answering the question .

And I wasn't talking to you anyway.

[AURaptor 1,122]

It's September 9, 2015, and the issue of whether or not two consenting adults can marry one another still needs to be addressed; here in the bastion of freedom.

.

What if it's 3 ? 5 adults? Same discussion?

It is a separate issue, so I would say separate discussion.

Why is it separate? Some might say that interracial marriage is a separate issue from same-sex marriage. So what's the difference?

You have a problem with interracial marriage?

Doesn't it fit?

What fits ? I didn't say anything. I ASKED a question. ICHY introduced a red herring & ignored the question. You followed that up with a false premise, to further distract from the point.