Posted on 09/09/2015 6:23:30 AM PDT by GIdget2004
A deputy county clerk in Kentucky says that even if his boss tells him to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, he will tell her he can't obey her order.
Brian Mason works for Rowan County clerk Kim Davis, who was jailed for five days over her refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Davis was released Tuesday. A judge warned her not to interfere with licensing. But her lawyers have said she can't violate her conscience, and Davis has repeatedly cited her beliefs about homosexuality as an apostolic Christian. The attorneys wouldn't say exactly what she'll do when she returns to work Friday or Monday.
Mason said Wednesday morning as the office opened that licenses would be granted to anyone seeking them. He told reporters that if Davis tells him to stop, he will tell her no.
(Excerpt) Read more at bigstory.ap.org ...
***Obergefell overturned Baker and requires all states to issue marriage licenses
to same-sex couples***
This is absolutely NOT true and typical of Wikipedia.
The Supreme Court gave its OPINION that all states must recognize SSM from other states, and its OPINION that SSM is Constitutional.
The Supreme Court CANNOT require any state to do anything because it cannot LEGISLATE.
I just linked Wiki. There are several links out there and one to a pdf file of the actual ruling.
It takes a long time to download as it’s 103 pages so I didn’t. Can you cite the specific
lines/wording use in the ruling. Copy and paste if you can. Thanks.
Here’s a link from the SCOTUS Blog
Holding: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people
of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their
marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/obergefell-v-hodges/
Here’s a link to actual ruling, 103 pages....
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CEUQFjAIahUKEwi6rqqnturHAhWDooAKHcqwCr4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopinions%2F14pdf%2F14-556_3204.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEvhVaEfYuJixcNwN323i0IG3iy8Q&sig2=GX3xeJFHMd03Ap1sjtf76A&bvm=bv.102022582,d.eXY
this would explain why the homosexuals are pushing this myth.
they KNOW they can not force a state to issue a marriage license to homosexuals any more than a state can be forced to sanction “common law marriage”. (there are only eight states that still have common law marriage) HOWEVER they are able to have full faith recognition.
There may be a legitimate Art IV basis for the USSC declaration that “there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character”, but I dispute this*. This would strike Ky. Rev. Stat. 402.045 Same-sex marriage in another jurisdiction void and unenforceable, it does not touch other provisions of Kentucky's marriage statutes but it does attack Section 233A of their Constitution.
There is no delegation to the Federal government for their regulation of marriage, the power is reserved to the States.
There is no 14th Amend. "equal protection” issue. There is no right to legal recognition of any grouping of persons assembled for any purpose. The people of Kentucky have decided that marriage is between man & woman. The advocates of a novel definition of “marriage” are free to avail themselves of the process prescribed by Kentucky law to change the laws to incorporate a novel description. This in no way inhibits or infringes upon any persons rights of association or restricts their sexual activities.
Comparisons to laws restricting marriage between differing races are groundless. Laws banning interracial marriage did not touch the definition of marriage; unlike this decree which does. Those laws were/are an equal protection violation, not a fundamental redefinition.
The USSC has intruded upon the independent sovereignty of the States. By declaring what the law of each and all of the States shall be** the USSC have made themselves a Super-Legislature of ALL the States collectively as a whole - a Branch of Government which does not exist under the U.S. Constitution! They have acted entirely outside the Constitution. This can not be tolerated.
Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan have acted as legislators, an act infinitely beyond the authority of the Court. They each must be impeached for their lawlessness, abuse of power, and violation of their Oath. They have brought disrepute upon the Court and have sown chaos in the States (Rowan County, Kentucky is not the only place where people refuse to comply). States must defend their people from this radical and illegitimate dictate.
_____
* Allowing the USSC to alter the well established definition of a word opens Pandora’s Box, there is unlimited chaos if this is allowed.
"Marriage" is not some novel or technical term, it has been understood since time immemorial to be a union of opposite genders.
In regard to "marriage", allowing Judicial alteration of the word to mean anything other than the union of opposite genders means future Judicial alterations must also be allowed. The USSC has rendered the word to be anything THEY desire at their arbitrary WHIM. Allowing this abuse of authority opens the door to “marriage” being any grouping of persons without regard to their age, number, or consanguinity. Obvious consequences are polygamy, incest, child marriage, and pedophilia - all of which are socially destructive - but most importantly: all of which would not be per legislation enacted by the Peoples' representatives, but by the Prerogative of un-accountable, un-appealable Kings ensconced in the USSC.
In general, the USSC has attacked language itself. If the attack is not repelled then the meaning of any word is indeterminate, even if it has been well established for millennia. Once the well established meaning is altered the power of the USSC is unlimited. Anything can be said to be an equal protection violation - or anything else they damn well please.
They imagine themselves Kings. They need to be thrown out on their ass.
_____
** “The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold - and it now does hold - that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.” - Obergefell
There is no "fundamental right" to legal recognition of any group of persons assembled for whatever purpose. Here the USSC declares what the law shall be in each and all of the States, making themselves Legislators.
Thanks for your response. I’m by far not a legal guru. Many many moons ago in college
having to take two business law courses was a hard one for me. To me there are much
clearer ways to say things.
Again, thanks for your detailed response....
It is only my considered opinion and I am not an attorney.
Nonsense, they do it all the time.
In 1954, the Supreme Court issued their decision in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, et. al. It didn't suggest that maybe the Kansas and Virginia and South Carolina and Delaware and D.C. maybe ought to look at their discriminatory laws. That ruling struck down all laws segregating schools by race and made it illegal in all the states.
In 1974 the Supreme Court issued their Furman v. Georgia decision. That decision didn't suggest that states might want to re-examine their capital punishment laws, it struck down the death penalty in every state of the Union and forced them to write new ones.
In 1967 the Supreme Court issued their decision in Loving v. Virginia. In it the court ruled that a ban in interracial marriage was unconstitutional, and at the same time it did not strike down all of Virginia's marriage laws. It just struck down those parts forbidding interracial marriage. And that ruling applied to all states with similar laws.
We can certainly debate the wisdom and logic of the Obergfell decision. But the idea that the Supreme Court cannot strike down a state law or part of a law as unconstitutional is patently false.
And where does this authority come from Ms Dawg? Because it is nowhere to be found in the United States Constitution. Or is there an amendment somewhere that states that a majority of 9 unelected Americans rule 300 million plus Americans absent their consent?
But you spent time and effort into putting that together.
I thought a thank you was appropriate.
Did they do away with Article III, Section 2?
Answering a question with a question is a tacit admission of failure. Article III, any section does not make the SCOTUS the giver if the law if the land or anywhere else for that matter.
The court gave themselves that power in Marbury and it is as bogus as your empty answer. We have legislative bodies and 5 aholes from Yale and Harvard are NOT part if them.
Furman v. Georgia encroaches upon the authority of the jury. It exemplifies one of my points, that allowing USSC bad behavior guarantees future bad behavior.
Prior bad acts do not justify other bad acts.
No but it gives them the jurisdiction to rule over all cases arising under the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and treaties made under their authority.
Again, we can debate the logic behind the court's decision but their authority to strike down state laws they rule are unconstitutional is well established.
The court gave themselves that power in Marbury and it is as bogus as your empty answer.
Really? If not them, then who?
The purpose was not to debate the wisdom of those decisions, and certainly not to defend the Obergfell decision, but to show to ResponseAbility that the court can, and frequently does, require states to abide by their rulings.
They have no such authority and you did use Furman v. Georgia to defend Obergfell.
Yeah, they do. And I'm not defending Obergfell but point out that the court has the authority to strike down state laws when they, in the judgement of the court, conflict with the Constitution.
Where is the authority to declare what marriage is?
Well in constitutional republics that power is reserved for citizens through elected officials. It is not reserved for z5 unelected judges. I think you are confusing the USA with the Soviet Union.
It may be MortMan.
It seems to me that if this form is being provided by the government office, it is a de facto government document that hasn’t been altered post it’s provision.
It is not something that is being provided to enact fraud or any other illegal purpose. (other than same sex marriage licenses, which I consider to be illegal)
Same with the cakes. Call every baker in town and when you finally find one who won’t bake you a cake? “Gotcha!”
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.