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

[AUDub 11,147]

And I agree with you guys. She knows that her job is to follow the law. Even if she doesn't agree with it, the law is the law. She should adhere to it or resign.

Says one of the few that claimed the Special Forces guy was right to beat up the Afghan Commander for incidents that went against his personal beliefs. Speaking of that, I could've sworn that EMT added another article added about that today?

He probably deleted it when I pointed out it was a dupe

[aujeff11 6,243]

And I agree with you guys. She knows that her job is to follow the law. Even if she doesn't agree with it, the law is the law. She should adhere to it or resign.

Says one of the few that claimed the Special Forces guy was right to beat up the Afghan Commander for incidents that went against his personal beliefs. Speaking of that, I could've sworn that EMT added another article added about that today?

He probably deleted it when I pointed out it was a dupe

ahh gotcha

[cooltigger21 0]

I find it quite amusing to see all the posts saying that this individual can't refuse to obey the law. Ok fine but when their beloved president does that they love it and defend it.

[Weegle777 78]

And I agree with you guys. She knows that her job is to follow the law. Even if she doesn't agree with it, the law is the law. She should adhere to it or resign.

Says one of the few that claimed the Special Forces guy was right to beat up the Afghan Commander for incidents that went against his personal beliefs. Speaking of that, I could've sworn that EMT added another article added about that today?

What?

[AURex 1,994]

If she wants out of jail, she can resign (and make a huge media event of it), or she can sit there until the governor (or voters) put someone else in her position, relieving her of responsibility. At which point, she can go on the speaking circuit and write a book and make some money for a year or so.

I can understand why she has been divorced so many times.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Titan, I wasn't even addressing you. Just the discussion at large. I you allow her to be able to pick and choose which laws to enforce...this is going to end in chaos. She is an elected official. No one is a bridging her right of speech or assembly or even to go run for a legislative office or even be elected governor of Kentucky. She can form and advocacy group etc. She has options. She is choosing the loser's path tho. She has no legal footing to stand on. She will lose this legal case. She will hand her enemies a quick and easy victory. If you want it fight this, than get a legal team together, find a better case, and fight. Her case is a loser.

i'm with you dkw. When you say there are 1000 interpretations of scripture you are correct. Maybe why i can't take the bible to heart so much. Do we need it when we all just decide what is right or wrong anyway. As far as titan defending her on the basis of committing all her divorces before her being saved, shouldn't that make her tend to be MORE understanding of those who have yet to find what she found?

I would tend to think that way as well.

Knowing I am as screwed up as anyone has taught me grace for others, not unrelenting judgment.

I am sooo tempted.....

Sooo tempted to admit you are as just a mere mortal as well? We all know THAT IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

[homersapien 11,366]

This is simple and straightforward: She should resign if her conscience won't allow her to do her job.

So should this newly converted muslim woman who filed a complaint.

http://www.cbsnews.c...rlines-alcohol/

Correct.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Let's back up and try that again, folks - like adults this time.

[homersapien 11,366]

Titan, I wasn't even addressing you. Just the discussion at large. I you allow her to be able to pick and choose which laws to enforce...this is going to end in chaos. She is an elected official. No one is a bridging her right of speech or assembly or even to go run for a legislative office or even be elected governor of Kentucky. She can form and advocacy group etc. She has options. She is choosing the loser's path tho. She has no legal footing to stand on. She will lose this legal case. She will hand her enemies a quick and easy victory. If you want it fight this, than get a legal team together, find a better case, and fight. Her case is a loser.

i'm with you dkw. When you say there are 1000 interpretations of scripture you are correct. Maybe why i can't take the bible to heart so much. Do we need it when we all just decide what is right or wrong anyway. As far as titan defending her on the basis of committing all her divorces before her being saved, shouldn't that make her tend to be MORE understanding of those who have yet to find what she found?

I would tend to think that way as well.

Knowing I am as screwed up as anyone has taught me grace for others, not unrelenting judgment.

I am sooo tempted.....

Sooo tempted to admit you are as just a mere mortal as well? We all know THAT IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

I am a mere mortal. A human being who makes frequent mistakes.

Wrong again.

[JoeBags7277 734]

From "A Nation of laws, not of men" to "ODISIOK" (Obama Did It, So Its OK."

Mighty sad state of affairs the modern conservative movement is in.

[AURaptor 1,122]

From "A Nation of laws, not of men" to "ODISIOK" (Obama Did It, So Its OK."

Mighty sad state of affairs the modern conservative movement is in.

And yet that is exactly what we see going on here. How is it 'sad' ? Unless you can show that is somehow not the case.

[JoeBags7277 734]

From "A Nation of laws, not of men" to "ODISIOK" (Obama Did It, So Its OK."

Mighty sad state of affairs the modern conservative movement is in.

And yet that is exactly what we see going on here. How is it 'sad' ? Unless you can show that is somehow not the case.

It's sad because I'm seeing a trend in modern conservatism in which right and wrong for right and wrong's sake has been cast aside for the allure of power and the ability to use it to punish your enemies. I see it in the rise of Trumpism, the reflexive and predictable urge to defend this woman because Obama, and social conservatism appears to be ate up with it, and has been for quite some time.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Titan, I wasn't even addressing you. Just the discussion at large. I you allow her to be able to pick and choose which laws to enforce...this is going to end in chaos. She is an elected official. No one is a bridging her right of speech or assembly or even to go run for a legislative office or even be elected governor of Kentucky. She can form and advocacy group etc. She has options. She is choosing the loser's path tho. She has no legal footing to stand on. She will lose this legal case. She will hand her enemies a quick and easy victory. If you want it fight this, than get a legal team together, find a better case, and fight. Her case is a loser.

i'm with you dkw. When you say there are 1000 interpretations of scripture you are correct. Maybe why i can't take the bible to heart so much. Do we need it when we all just decide what is right or wrong anyway. As far as titan defending her on the basis of committing all her divorces before her being saved, shouldn't that make her tend to be MORE understanding of those who have yet to find what she found?

I would tend to think that way as well.

Knowing I am as screwed up as anyone has taught me grace for others, not unrelenting judgment.

I am sooo tempted.....

Sooo tempted to admit you are as just a mere mortal as well? We all know THAT IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

I am a mere mortal. A human being who makes frequent mistakes.

Wrong again.

There is hope for homer yet.

:bananadance: :bananadance: :bananadance:

On a side note: How many dancing bananas does it take before your eyes cross?

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Always interesting to see it from another angle:

"It's interesting that gay activists who praised SF mayor Gavin Newsom for illegally issuing marriage licenses now vilify Kim Davis.” - Michael Brown

Which federal laws are ok to ignore again?

Humans are nothing if not maddeningly inconsistent.

[cooltigger21 0]

Liberals love officials that break the law when THEY don't like the law. Its ok to not enforce immigration laws. Its ok to set up these sanctuary cities. They like that.

[telling tiger 156]

One of those people you mention was trying to expand equality and one is trying to deny equality.....We all know where most people here fall on that spectrum of opinion...

The first person made a SYMBOLIC effort at change.....The other person made a DEFINITIVE denial of legal change...

Only one defied a DIRECT and PERSONALIZED court order stemming from her own request....

There are some differences though the same people will deny that is true...

[TitanTiger 20,472]

One of those people you mention was trying to expand equality and one is trying to deny equality.....We all know where most people here fall on that spectrum of opinion...

The first person made a SYMBOLIC effort at change.....The other person made a DEFINITIVE denial of legal change...

Only one defied a DIRECT and PERSONALIZED court order stemming from her own request....

There are some differences though the same people will deny that is true...

Then don't make an argument based on the "rule of law." Make it on "what one believes is right" or on "supporting laws that further one's notions of equality."

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Another funny:

[DKW 86 7,419]

Always interesting to see it from another angle:

"It's interesting that gay activists who praised SF mayor Gavin Newsom for illegally issuing marriage licenses now vilify Kim Davis.” - Michael Brown

Which federal laws are ok to ignore again?

Humans are nothing if not maddeningly inconsistent.

And this is a great point.

When is Civil Disobedience a crime versus just CD?

King, Mandela, Gandhi were jailed and became or already were activists.

They organized and then changed the laws that were on the books.

I know the issue of SSM has totally emotionalized some on the right. You cannot separate this issue from the true homophobic crazies that are out there. They think that giving any rights to a homosexual is an affront to themselves. They literally do hate that hard.

When deciding when CD is just CD, i think i will have to filter on:

1) which side is denying rights to the other

2) which side would logic say i should be on

3) which side does my understanding of scripture say i should be on?

I dont endorse/condone/promote some of the extreme parts of some homosexual lifestyles. I do however have to conclude that biology drives sexual preferences, at least the majority of them. Liking males or females is biological. Needing to use an egg beater, a live chicken, and some peach preserves that is your choice. But what you do in your bedroom is not my business. Like Kim Davis has shown us, mocking marriage can come from different angles. I do know that i am as big a mess as anyone. I have done stupid on a cosmic level. Mr Two Degrees and Counting does not have the world figured out at all. As i grow older i learn that i have even less and less of it figured out. I am personally not going to condemn someone that is no better nor worse than i am in finding their own way and dealing with their own demons the way they will. I am not walking in their shoes. I dont have their life experiences. etc.

Most of the folks i know that are homosexual have been in relationships of 8-10 years at least. Some however are doing well to have a relationship last 2-3 weeks.I also know so many heteros that are the same way. So i dont feel the need to deny others the expression of love that Ms Davis has already used four times herself.

[telling tiger 156]

Uh interesting response, lol......

There IS an argument based on rule of law....SCOTUS ruling opened marriage law availability to ALL couples.....she denied that....

That WOULD be a violation of law......seems the Fed judge agreed or she wouldn't be sitting where she is....Newsome made a SYMBOLIC effort.....SSM marriage was not legal at the time....symbolism....free not to like it, not free to claim he broke a law......none of them were legally binding...Simply a symbolic effort,,,,

Got a kids soccer game to get to......back later. WDE.

[DKW 86 7,419]

Uh interesting response, lol......

There IS an argument based on rule of law....SCOTUS ruling opened marriage law availability to ALL couples.....she denied that....

That WOULD be a violation of law......seems the Fed judge agreed or she wouldn't be sitting where she is....Newsome made a SYMBOLIC effort.....SSM marriage was not legal at the time....symbolism....free not to like it, not free to claim he broke a law......none of them were legally binding...Simply a symbolic effort,,,,

Got a kids soccer game to get to......back later. WDE.

Dont mean to confuse the issue here, BUT at one time it was legal to deny blacks the right to register to vote, seats at the restaurant, segregation was the law of the land. At one time women could not vote, own property, drive cars. Just about all these things changed because someone started an act of Civil Disobedience. Not following the rule of law has a glorious history. I dont think KD is on the right side of the issue however.

[cooltigger21 0]

Uh interesting response, lol......

There IS an argument based on rule of law....SCOTUS ruling opened marriage law availability to ALL couples.....she denied that....

That WOULD be a violation of law......seems the Fed judge agreed or she wouldn't be sitting where she is....Newsome made a SYMBOLIC effort.....SSM marriage was not legal at the time....symbolism....free not to like it, not free to claim he broke a law......none of them were legally binding...Simply a symbolic effort,,,,

Got a kids soccer game to get to......back later. WDE.

Dont mean to confuse the issue here, BUT at one time it was legal to deny blacks the right to register to vote, seats at the restaurant, segregation was the law of the land. At one time women could not vote, own property, drive cars. Just about all these things changed because someone started an act of Civil Disobedience. Not following the rule of law has a glorious history. I dont think KD is on the right side of the issue however.

I would agree but jail is not the way to handle it. I wonder if it will be OK to disobey when, not if but when, a homosexual couple sues a church and a court sides with the couple.

[homersapien 11,366]

Titan, I wasn't even addressing you. Just the discussion at large. I you allow her to be able to pick and choose which laws to enforce...this is going to end in chaos. She is an elected official. No one is a bridging her right of speech or assembly or even to go run for a legislative office or even be elected governor of Kentucky. She can form and advocacy group etc. She has options. She is choosing the loser's path tho. She has no legal footing to stand on. She will lose this legal case. She will hand her enemies a quick and easy victory. If you want it fight this, than get a legal team together, find a better case, and fight. Her case is a loser.

i'm with you dkw. When you say there are 1000 interpretations of scripture you are correct. Maybe why i can't take the bible to heart so much. Do we need it when we all just decide what is right or wrong anyway. As far as titan defending her on the basis of committing all her divorces before her being saved, shouldn't that make her tend to be MORE understanding of those who have yet to find what she found?

I would tend to think that way as well.

Knowing I am as screwed up as anyone has taught me grace for others, not unrelenting judgment.

I am sooo tempted.....

Sooo tempted to admit you are as just a mere mortal as well? We all know THAT IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

I am a mere mortal. A human being who makes frequent mistakes.

Wrong again.

There is hope for homer yet.

:bananadance: :bananadance: :bananadance:

On a side note: How many dancing bananas does it take before your eyes cross?

That's enough. I can't even count them.

[homersapien 11,366]

Uh interesting response, lol......

There IS an argument based on rule of law....SCOTUS ruling opened marriage law availability to ALL couples.....she denied that....

That WOULD be a violation of law......seems the Fed judge agreed or she wouldn't be sitting where she is....Newsome made a SYMBOLIC effort.....SSM marriage was not legal at the time....symbolism....free not to like it, not free to claim he broke a law......none of them were legally binding...Simply a symbolic effort,,,,

Got a kids soccer game to get to......back later. WDE.

Dont mean to confuse the issue here, BUT at one time it was legal to deny blacks the right to register to vote, seats at the restaurant, segregation was the law of the land. At one time women could not vote, own property, drive cars. Just about all these things changed because someone started an act of Civil Disobedience. Not following the rule of law has a glorious history. I dont think KD is on the right side of the issue however.

I would agree but jail is not the way to handle it. I wonder if it will be OK to disobey when, not if but when, a homosexual couple sues a church and a court sides with the couple.

Just out of curiosity Tigger, can you tell us which side of those issues conservatives on and which side liberals were on?

[cooltigger21 0]

Equating homosexual marriage to the civil rights movement is the most absurd thing in the world. It was the Democratic party that was the home of all the people like bull Connor. They were the ones that stood in the way of civil rights for black people.