now its being reported, 5 months after she divorced her third husband, she gave birth to twins by her FIRST Husband. so not only is she a nut job, she is an adulterer.
Rowan County Clerk Refuses After Supreme Court
- Thread starter -LEK-
- Start date
- Status
Overweight, 3-time divorced, government worker? A democrat? Mind Blown! But still, you libs are the same people you've been since the beginning of time. This woman's a heretic and must be punished by the masses. And I'm fine with that. I just wish you would own up to it.
Didn't the SCOTUS just write law when they overturned States Gay Marriage ban that was voted on and passed by the citizens of said states? SCOTUS are not even elected, they are appointed.
I agree she should do her job and uphold the law, but if I was wanting to get married, I would drive to the next county and get it done. I think both sides are just trying to prove a point, and has nothing to do with rights.
Man, being an elected official sounds like a pretty sweet job. Suck at life and still not get fired? Sign me up. I bet it comes with a sweet pension plan, too
Registered Libertarian, Wayne. Another swing and miss. GD you suck at this. Smh.
Added proof just in case you keep talking out your ass..... Go on, give us more Wayne Dougan wisdom.....
Last edited:
I wasn't addressing you. You're a speck of dust good only for a laugh when I see your ever-changing odd profile pics. But congrats on "winning this thread"; at least you have that going for you.
You quoted me. So I thought you were implying. Wayne, in a biggest penis contest. Not only am I throwing out my penis, I'm throwing out my balls too. Anything to get a leg up...
Speck of dust? Ha ha yep. Made up of lots of them. They're called atoms.
Oh, piss. Such sensitive piss. BTW, no. Circuit courts are not legally bound through the office of county clerk to perform the service of issuing licenses for marriage in exchange for revenue fee. So this woman would probably have been just as well served to declare her war on gay marriage by discontinuing altogether the service of issuing marriage licenses. That way, nobody would have been discriminated by her office.
Never fight an emotional war. Always fight the logical war. Like pouring sensitive piss out of a boot.
^ That's exactly what she did. She stopped issuing all marriage licenses. Still illegal.
That is exactly what she's doing and it's the only reason the National Guard hasn't stormed the clerk's office (which I am holding out for).
But here is the thing, county clerks do not authorize marriages. The role of the county clerk is to record legal records -- and that includes marriage documents. She could just as religiously reconcile this with admittance that her role as a recorder does not equate having the authority to arbitrate who and who cannot marry. It is the role of the court to declare the legality of marriage -- not the clerk. She is merely willfully effing up her place in the bureaucratic assembly line.
Last edited:
The county clerk issues marriage licenses in KY. That's the way it is. I could give you a link to prove it, but I would rather you provide one that disproves it.
You can try and double talk it all you want. You asked an extremely stupid question only moments after calling everyone an idiot.
I hope we can still be global warming friends though.
You can try and double talk it all you want. You asked an extremely stupid question only moments after calling everyone an idiot.
I hope we can still be global warming friends though.
Not sure who you are talking to and could break this down to semantics, but it's not necessarily accurate that the clerk issues licenses. They approve licenses, but there is not an official form certified by state or county. The state has set requirements for verbiage, but there is not an official state form. You could print your own if you wanted and it would be considered legal if signed by clerk and processed in Frankfort.
This bitch and her supporters are just, wow. Have fun on the wrong side of history ... as always.
Step aside, Kim. You've used 14:59 of your 15 minutes.
And for F sakes, thanks for making Kentucky look like a social backwater to the rest of the nation. Is the rest of the south acting fools over this too or just the Kentucky three? (One of whom is out riding his bike for Jesus and the other one somehow is never mentioned. That one needs to step their Christian lawyer/gofundme game up.)
Step aside, Kim. You've used 14:59 of your 15 minutes.
And for F sakes, thanks for making Kentucky look like a social backwater to the rest of the nation. Is the rest of the south acting fools over this too or just the Kentucky three? (One of whom is out riding his bike for Jesus and the other one somehow is never mentioned. That one needs to step their Christian lawyer/gofundme game up.)
Last edited:
Where did I say there was a standard state form? The county clerk issues marriage licenses in KY. You fill out the application, you receive your license provided you and your intended meet all the requirements. There is no waiting period.
He asked a stupid question and I called him on it. Just that simple. Her JOB is to issue marriage licenses. She is paid to perform that function by the very people she is denying service to.
I'm not too hip on gay marriage, but I'm less hip on religion and all the stupidity it entails.
He asked a stupid question and I called him on it. Just that simple. Her JOB is to issue marriage licenses. She is paid to perform that function by the very people she is denying service to.
I'm not too hip on gay marriage, but I'm less hip on religion and all the stupidity it entails.
And such a fine job of calling out. Well done on your part. And the discussion that it incited with at least one other person who seems well informed. Was that not my objective? Yes. Indeed this woman has performed her duties poorly, and it is her right to muck it up and be remembered as the dumbest clerk in the business - although I would probably save that distinction for the litany of those who have been caught swiping many thousands upon thousands from the county till, and have done hard time.
I've been told that in some states you can apply for marriage licenses electronically, print them out over the web. What gratification would that bring for the attention seeker, however?
You have called me out: And in the gentleman's pursuit of your request, I have made effort to find any Kentucky Statute that makes it legal binding for clerk offices to provide the service of issuing marriage licenses. I have been unsuccessful. You seem to think that if a clerk was able to have the option of omitting that service that some form of an "option" statute would be on the books. The latter would not exist without the former.
Here is your first clue that she is the one who issues the license. The Supreme Court said she had to. If the Sheriff could do it, or the County Attorney, or if you could just print one on a napkin and send it in, there wouldn't be a discussion, would there?
Specifically, the SC ruled that 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. It does not refer to a capacity which must perform this function. I anticipate this will be her defense when she appears before Judge Bunning.
Further, she is not preventing the State of Kentucky from licensing gay marriage simply by not providing that service in 1 out of 120 counties.
Further, she is not preventing the State of Kentucky from licensing gay marriage simply by not providing that service in 1 out of 120 counties.
Last edited:
I agree with her stance. If the Supreme Court were to have say,reversed Roe vs Wade and made abortion illegal,you all would have been having a hissy fit and would have applauded any doctor that refused to follow the ruling.
Bunch of cry babies upset because someone doesn't agree with their opinion. Who cares what you think of her? I doubt she will care what a bunch of message board tough guys think. You all trying to out clever each other is rather laughable. If you're so upset, it ain't that far away, man up and head on over.
Bunch of cry babies upset because someone doesn't agree with their opinion. Who cares what you think of her? I doubt she will care what a bunch of message board tough guys think. You all trying to out clever each other is rather laughable. If you're so upset, it ain't that far away, man up and head on over.
Not to mention that the vote was 5-4.
I've tried not to take a stance on this, other than to criticize the process. I tend to side on the POV that people should be free to let the government acknowledge their relational union (I am an evangelical Christian, though). But one person determining the outcome of these issues is beyond ridiculous.
Leviathan.
It's depressing that a few of you guys are so stupid.
And people wonder if Pot will ever be legal in Ky.
She is legally bound by law to issue marriage license. We wouldn't be having this discussion if she wasn't. She swore an oath to fulfill the responsibility's of this job and now she is reneging on that oath.
I'm not for gay marriage but those people went through the process and got the laws changed. If she wants it changed then she can do the same. I have no sympathy for the lazy and self entitled.
I'm not for gay marriage but those people went through the process and got the laws changed. If she wants it changed then she can do the same. I have no sympathy for the lazy and self entitled.
Just people using religion to justify hatred. Nothing new. Will happen till the end of time.
One person determining the outcome? Was it not 5 people? Was it not 55.5% of the court?
Most presidential elections have smaller margins.
A) there are a few more than 9 votes in a presidential election.
B) in a 5-4 vote, 1 person swings the vote the other way. There has never, nor will there ever be a presidential election where 1 vote swings the results to the opposite side. That is the definition of 1 vote being determinant of the outcome. Why is this difficult for you to understand?
So if somebody won an election with 54,001 votes versus 54,002 votes only one person decided the outcome? At what point should we use crazyqx83's standards to determine if one person decided something or if a majority decided something?
Its good to see people have absolutely no idea how our government works or what the branches do.
Well... technically speaking the popular vote doesn't even determine the presidency, anyways...
My larger point was that if there was one more conservative justice rather than a liberal one, you would likely have the opposite result. These decisions largely boil down to which president appointed the justice. That's a pretty wide reaching arrangement, no matter if you agree with the process, or not.
Laws are made
Laws get challenged
Laws need to be followed.
She had a right to go through the process, she did that, and lost. Do the job, resign, or get removed.
I'm just glad to see so many new believers that elected officials should follow the law. I guess a random clerk in BFE that has nearly zero ultimate power to stop anything is the first step.
Laws get challenged
Laws need to be followed.
She had a right to go through the process, she did that, and lost. Do the job, resign, or get removed.
I'm just glad to see so many new believers that elected officials should follow the law. I guess a random clerk in BFE that has nearly zero ultimate power to stop anything is the first step.
How would you interpret the result, then...? 5 justices thought they were right, 4 more justices thought they were right. It Got To The Supreme Court Because There Was No Consensus Among the lower courts. Several circuit courts agreed with the ban and several courts did not. THAT'S HOW THIS WORKS .
Sounds to me like you're the one that is ignorant of the process.
- Status
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
The Ukraine war. (Yes, we'll mind our manners)- Latest: CastleRubric
