Posted on 09/04/2015 7:33:37 AM PDT by ctdonath2
Did you read the KY law at the link I provided? The issue is quite clearly addressed and deeply intertwined. Rather difficult to extract the objected-to parts without voiding the whole thing.
One way or another the law MUST be formally re-written or struck down entirely. The nature of law is NOT to just ignore bits of it based on vague statements, even if those vague statements are compulsory. We have to know exactly what the law is, SCOTUS ruling having been applied.
Don’t think it matters for Hillary! at this point. She crossed the wrong people (military intelligence), and they’re building a solid case for destroying her.
Can anyone be coerced into IMPEACHMENT of Judge Bunning for his unlawful acts?
I’ve already contacted my Representative about doing exactly that. Have you?
I can only hope. Issue though is that Obama has been using that power to bust down on Generals quite a bit while in office.
I only hope, due to the fact the email issue can possibly splash back on the Resident, that we do get to see Hillary spend some time in a big house, where she can think over a lot of things she’s done.
Please feel free to contact Davis's legal team with your theory. The same one that is apparently escaping all conservative legal scholars, judges, prosecutors, law professors, law students, etc.
She sure is and who appointed him Judge? That needs to found out so we know where his support lies in her being put in jail....
But what Kim should have done was what Thomas More did. He would not betray his conscience, so he quit his job.
More was only arrested after he had been gone from the scene awhile when the king insisted that he take the oath. The refusal was a capital offense.
Kim should have quit her job. I can't see the government running after her like the king did to More.
Things are so screwed around.
I doubt any of the guards at the jail would risk his/her life in order to keep a political prisoner in jail. They would probably stand aside in the face of an overwhelming show of force.
Having read the statutes that define when a clerk issues marriage licenses, they all are worded gender-specifically, and all rely on the explicit definition of marriage as man & woman.
They all were voided because they all are foundationally related to hetero marriage.
Yes, she should have focused on the law. Her argument implies that she believes she is performing or solemnizing a marriage, when in fact she is simply issuing a license for someone else to perform that function. The argument would be a lot more relevant if she were a justice of the peace who was being coerced into solemnizing the ceremony.
Actually, the marriage licenses state that it is given under her personal authority, with her signature. That is the crux of the matter.
She’s still facilitating it.
Obviously you are not very familiar with either the gay mafia or the federal department of "justice."
Her whole case was based on a “religious freedom” argument, when a simple reference to the statutory requirements under Kentucky law would have sufficed.
Which leads me to repeat...she wanted to become a martyr...
I wonder how county clerks who are observant Christians have handled the licensing of the sale of alcoholic beverages. My cousin is county clerk (not in Kentucky) and that is one of her duties. I don’t think she has a religious compunction against the consumption of alcohol, but I know many who do.
You mean that if she were to quit her job the gay mafia and the department of justice would have pulled her back into the fight and eventually loped her head off?
Not this week. Maybe next.
Methinks you grossly overestimate how many Christians oppose alcohol consumption; correlation is practically nonexistent.
You also are using an analogy where the licensed activity has been normalized long before one accepts a job which includes that facilitation.
The problem in this case is that Davis became County Clerk _before_ the KY definition involved was changed by judges outside her jurisdiction. Yes she may choose to step down, but it is also reasonable to refuse to facilitate an activity which was not part of the job description, and address that refusal on religious grounds WITHOUT being incarcerated for a mere administrative paperwork dispute.
It’s the old “living near an airport” issue: moving to a home next to an airport and then complaining about the noise is one thing, moving to a home which an airport is built next to much later is quite different. Your cousin KNEW issuing alcohol-related licenses was part of the job before she signed up for it. Davis didn’t know she’d have to facilitate activity that a great many consider morally reprehensible (way more than oppose alcohol availability).
They may very well have pressed charges anyway. Kept her head, but lost her liberty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.