News2 mins ago
Kentucky Clerk Jailed For Defying Court Orders On Gay Marriage
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ummmm. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
TTT
I would be interested to hear your solution to this problem, and why you think those who wanted a licence from their elected official should be denied one.
Do you think the compromise offered was fair? That she could continue in office, but let her deputies issue licences?
It seems that you're skirting that question.
I would be interested to hear your solution to this problem, and why you think those who wanted a licence from their elected official should be denied one.
Do you think the compromise offered was fair? That she could continue in office, but let her deputies issue licences?
It seems that you're skirting that question.
my solution is to repeal this silly same sex marriage law. If we must have it then accept the views of those like this clerk and create a parallel post for a clerk that knows what they have to do when they start the job. Over time those like this clerk will retire etc and we will be left with officials doing the job after the goal posts moved.
TTT -- technically there is no "same-sex marriage law" in the US. It was a Supreme Court decision, 5-4 majority, that held that same-sex marriage was a constitutional right. There are, in the US, only two ways to repeal this law. You could repeal the US constitution (which is never going to happen), or a future Supreme Court could revisit the decision, in, say, ten years, and find that same-sex marriage is, after all, not a constitutional right but a matter for individual states to decide.
And even then it might not actually be repealed, as in a decade or so public opinion may well have shifted on the issue. One can argue that the Supreme Court decision in June is surprising (and, for many, even supporters of the right, it really is surprising) -- but no law was passed that can be repealed, and now that the decision is made it is the duty of state officials to follow that decision, which in 18 counties they are failing to do. Rowan County's clerk, Kim Davis (and not Kim Clark as I think I called her a page or so back), is merely the one that's got the biggest limelight. Exactly why the other 17 have slipped past the media I'm not sure, although it's worth noting that this also means that "the gay lobby" has clearly not targeted these ones quite so effectively...
And even then it might not actually be repealed, as in a decade or so public opinion may well have shifted on the issue. One can argue that the Supreme Court decision in June is surprising (and, for many, even supporters of the right, it really is surprising) -- but no law was passed that can be repealed, and now that the decision is made it is the duty of state officials to follow that decision, which in 18 counties they are failing to do. Rowan County's clerk, Kim Davis (and not Kim Clark as I think I called her a page or so back), is merely the one that's got the biggest limelight. Exactly why the other 17 have slipped past the media I'm not sure, although it's worth noting that this also means that "the gay lobby" has clearly not targeted these ones quite so effectively...
TTT
Are you deliberately ignoring the points I and jim360 have put to you regarding your (in my opinion) incorrect reading of this situation?
If so, no worries - I'll leave it. I too have made invalid assumptions about a news story because it's fitted with my own particular world view, so I know where you're coming from.
Are you deliberately ignoring the points I and jim360 have put to you regarding your (in my opinion) incorrect reading of this situation?
If so, no worries - I'll leave it. I too have made invalid assumptions about a news story because it's fitted with my own particular world view, so I know where you're coming from.
The real, basic underlying problem with the redefining of marriage within the Supreme Courts ruling on Obergefell vs. Hodges ( the lawsuit brought to the Supremes for adjudication) is that the Court found it's reasoning within the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states; "...The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment."
The redefining of marriage has already brought law suits from polygamists in seriousness as well as threatened suits from those that wish to marry their pets (dog, cat, horse, etc.). It's entirely unclear how the court will rule in those cases.
Fact is, though the several States now are faced with redefining rules and regulations concerning divorce, since the existing applications are worded to apply only to "him" and "her".
The redefining of marriage has already brought law suits from polygamists in seriousness as well as threatened suits from those that wish to marry their pets (dog, cat, horse, etc.). It's entirely unclear how the court will rule in those cases.
Fact is, though the several States now are faced with redefining rules and regulations concerning divorce, since the existing applications are worded to apply only to "him" and "her".
The lawsuits from polygamists may well pass, I guess, but then again it may not, depending on how important the number "two" is to marriage. Those threatening to marry their animals don't have a cat's chance in hell of winning any lawsuits. After all, the second party to the marriage, the animal, is not a "person" under any legal definition, and cannot offer consent to the marriage. So a slippery slope to bestiality isn't going to happen, not now and not ever.
It is a bit of a legal mess, though, and I am, in fact, one of those that was surprised by the Supreme Court's decision. Marriage between same-sex couples ought to be legal, in my opinion, but the ruling that found that it was a constitutional right seemed to me to be a bit of a contradiction -- the entire problem being that even 20 years ago, let alone 240, same-sex marriage was barely envisaged, if at all. Still, the SC apparently felt that it was constitutional, this time at least, and state officials at least have to abide by that decision. The protests are going to roll on and on, I fear.
It is a bit of a legal mess, though, and I am, in fact, one of those that was surprised by the Supreme Court's decision. Marriage between same-sex couples ought to be legal, in my opinion, but the ruling that found that it was a constitutional right seemed to me to be a bit of a contradiction -- the entire problem being that even 20 years ago, let alone 240, same-sex marriage was barely envisaged, if at all. Still, the SC apparently felt that it was constitutional, this time at least, and state officials at least have to abide by that decision. The protests are going to roll on and on, I fear.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.