Rowan County Clerk Refuses After Supreme Court

[-LEK-]

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.

Seriously, do all your posts have to always be "wtf are you talking about?"

Of the 9 Justices, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are the conservatives. Thats 5. Which is the majority.

Also, Souter, a liberal judge, was appointed by Bush 1.

You should do some more research before just half-mindedly offering uneducated opinions in every thread.

 

[fuzz77]

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?

Because without the other 4 votes that one vote is meaningless.

 

[crazyqx83]

Seriously, do all your posts have to always be "wtf are you talking about?"

Of the 9 Justices, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are the conservatives. Thats 5. Which is the majority.

Also, Souter, a liberal judge, was appointed by Bush 1.

You should do some more research before just half-mindedly offering uneducated opinions in every thread.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that each justice vote strictly with their supposed ideological affiliation. I said it was more likely and if there was one more conservative justice then it would have gone the opposite way.

My overall point (which you are grossly ignoring) is that these decisions are largely based on closely contested results based on interpretation or opinion. That's pretty much the definition and process of the supreme court.

 

[crazyqx83]

Because without the other 4 votes that one vote is meaningless.

And without the 1 vote, the result is tied. Why is this difficult to understand for you all?

 

[-LEK-]

How would you interpret the result, then... smartass? 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.

I see. You have no idea how a case moves up from the lower courts. Or why. Got it.

Also, its obvious that you dont understand the appeal process.

So several circuit courts agreed with the ban huh?

out of the 39 federal cases, the rulings were 37-2 for gay marriage or a portion of it.

Seriously, just stop

 

[Dore95]

Seriously, do all your posts have to always be "wtf are you talking about?"

Of the 9 Justices, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts and Alito are the conservatives. Thats 5. Which is the majority.

Also, Souter, a liberal judge, was appointed by Bush 1.

You should do some more research before just half-mindedly offering uneducated opinions in every thread.

I agree with your overall point, but Souter hasn't been on the court in more than 5 years. In general, currently there are 4 liberal and 4 conservative justices. Kennedy is the moderate swing vote.

None of this has anything to do with whether this clerk should do her job. She has no right, constitutional or otherwise, to refuse to follow the law. The fact that Bevin has announced his support for her is just baffling to me.

 

[-LEK-]

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said that each justice vote strictly with their supposed ideological affiliation. I said it was more likely and if there was one more conservative justice then it would have gone the opposite way.

My overall point (which you are grossly ignoring) is that these decisions are largely based on closely contested results based on interpretation or opinion. That's pretty much the definition and process of the supreme court.

So much fail.

 

[crazyqx83]

I see. You have no idea how a case moves up from the lower courts. Or why. Got it.

Also, its obvious that you dont understand the appeal process.

So several circuit courts agreed with the ban huh?

out of the 39 federal cases, the rulings were 37-2 for gay marriage or a portion of it.

Seriously, just stop

OMG, you are using half arguments and omissions to attempt to invalidate my overall point.

I know exactly how the supreme court works. I know a little about the specifics of this case, the various decisions and overrulings. Obviously you know more, which is why you are arguing semantics and attempting to invalidate my argument based on omissions and in-completions.

 

[Mashburned]

Why can't Rowan co just vote?

 

[crazyqx83]

So much fail.

I think you've failed and hopefully you'll come to that realization, eventually. It's beginning to be pointed out to you.

Are you intentionally trying to bait and switch? Are you some kind of savant that gets off on misleading and illogical arguments just to get people to argue with you?

 

[qwesley]

I agree with your overall point, but Souter hasn't been on the court in more than 5 years. In general, currently there are 4 liberal and 4 conservative justices. Kennedy is the moderate swing vote.

None of this has anything to do with whether this clerk should do her job. She has no right, constitutional or otherwise, to refuse to follow the law. The fact that Bevin has announced his support for her is just baffling to me.

Exactly, terrible argument by Lek. The most liberal justice of the modern era, Stevens, was appointed by a Rep.

And Bevin using the 1st amendment argument is especially silly.

 

[qwesley]

Justice Scalia explains why Kim Davis should issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or find a new job http://wpo.st/ZgbY0 @VolokhC

 

[_Chase_]

Matt Bevin is an imbecile.

 

[-LEK-]

The most liberal justice of the modern era, Stevens, was appointed by a Rep.

.

Wut?
I was making my point that Justices' politics aren't always indicative of the the party that put them in power. So thanks for agreeing with me... I get following lines of logic can be difficult for you, but seriously...

 

[Chuckinden]

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.

What a bunch of inert nonsense.

 

[qwesley]

Wut?
I was making my point that Justices' politics aren't always indicative of the the party that put them in power. So thanks for agreeing with me... I get following lines of logic can be difficult for you, but seriously...

You lumped the 5 appointed by Reps as "conservative" so the above is certainly not the point you were making, as dore pointed out Kennedy is not conservative and Roberts is debatable. Hell, you didn't even know Souter was not on the court but don't let that slow down your arrogant ramblings.

 

[-LEK-]

You lumped the 5 appointed by Reps as "conservative" so the above is certainly not the point you were making, as dore pointed out Kennedy is not conservative and Roberts is debatable. Hell, you didn't even know Souter was not on the court but don't let that slow down your arrogant ramblings.

Are you retarded? I was showing Judges that differ from the political stance from administration. Are you really saying Roberts isn't conservative? Step away from the cool aid.

 

[qwesley]

Roberts sure broke well for the left on gay marriage and ACA. And Kennedy is a swing vote. Not knowing Souter had retired symbolizes your knowledge. Carry on tho....no ones been called a bigot yet so you have work to do.

 

[Cerastes]

I wonder what "vows" she took at her marriage(s)?

 

[Xception]

County clerk trolling everybody

 

[-LEK-]

Roberts sure broke well for the left on gay marriage and ACA. And Kennedy is a swing vote. Not knowing Souter had retired symbolizes your knowledge. Carry on tho....no ones been called a bigot yet so you have work to do.

What the hell are you talking about? I was looking at Justices when I wrote my argument. I know Souter wasn't on the court. I never said he wasn't. You and I made the same argument.

And as far as Roberts moving to the left, that's just crazy. It's borderline retarded. Not sure why I'm responding when it's obvious you are too dumb to keep up by making that argument.

Read why he voted ok on ACA. He called it a tax.

You are the worst kind. Angry and dumb.

 

[KopiKat]

You are the worst kind. Angry and dumb.

I liked your post. Couldn't see my way past the part about you vilifying somebody else for being angry. I liked that part a LOT.

 

[BlueTick2]

How much will this person cost the Kentucky tax payer in the end?

 

[KopiKat]

She is legally bound by law to issue marriage license. We wouldn't be having this discussion if she wasn't.

What law? If you are referring to the June 26 Supreme Court ruling that only applies to same sex marriage, and not "marriage". I am unaware of any state or federal law, legislated or through the courts, statute or case ruling, that requires states or any particular office of the states to sell to the public licenses for conventional marriage in exchange for revenue fee. Only now is there such a law, by US Supreme court ruling, which effectively makes same sex marriage a more protected, more guaranteed institution than conventional marriage, by unlimited measure. You should correct your post to read: She is legally bound by law to issue SAME SEX marriage license. That is the law, John.

Suits me, I don't like gay marriage and I don't like ANY marriage and I don't like bible thumpers and I don't really like ANY religion nor do I even like the way this Rowan Co. clerk bat looks. But I will say that if she was muslim, and was able to cite Koran and Isalmaic custom that forbade her from performing the service, out of fear that Sharia radicals would hunt her down and hurt her, she would get tons of public support and the public response would be this: why can't those gays just go to a neighboring county to get what they need?

 

[TransyCat09]

Just dawned on me who the judge is that she will be going before . Good luck, lady. The only thing worse than disobeying his order would be making fun of hislisp. Give that one a try, Mrs. Duggar-lite

 

[-LEK-]

I liked your post. Couldn't see my way past the part about you vilifying somebody else for being angry. I liked that part a LOT.

It was a quantifier. I like angry people. Not angry dumb people.

And I liked your post for liking mine

 

[_Chase_]

What law?

I am unaware of any state or federal law, legislated or through the courts, statute or case ruling, that requires states or any particular office of the states to sell to the public licenses for conventional marriage in exchange for revenue fee. Only now is there such a law, by US Supreme court ruling, which effectively makes same sex marriage a more protected, more guaranteed institution than conventional marriage, by unlimited measure. You should correct your post to read: She is legally bound by law to issue SAME SEX marriage license. That is the law, John.

Each county clerk shall use the form prescribed by the Department for Libraries and Archives when issuing a marriage license.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.100 (West)

The county clerk shall receive for the following services the following fees:
(19) Marriage license, indexing, recording, and issuing certificate thereof..$24.00

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 64.012 (West)

 

[ymmot31]

Here is the number for the Rowan County clerks office 606.784.5212. Call her up and ask her what the law says.

 

[ymmot31]

Each county clerk shall use the form prescribed by the Department for Libraries and Archives when issuing a marriage license.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.100 (West)

The county clerk shall receive for the following services the following fees:
(19) Marriage license, indexing, recording, and issuing certificate thereof..$24.00

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 64.012 (West)

THAT SNOT A LAW!! THATS A REV STAT!!!

 

[_Chase_]

Only now is there such a law, by US Supreme court ruling, which effectively makes same sex marriage a more protected, more guaranteed institution than conventional marriage, by unlimited measure.

Marriage is a fundamental right, dipshit.

1. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
2. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
3. Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
4. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
5. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
6. Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
7. Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
9. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
   [*]Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
   [*]Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
   [*]Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
   [*]M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
   [*]Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

Same-sex marriage is not more protected and more guaranteed by an unlimited measure than traditional marriage. They are now protected precisely the same amount.

 

[JHB4UK]

Republicans lost on this decades ago. Should have applied their limited government/get government out of people's lives principles back then and not given government the power to approve of/recognize marriages in the first place.

 

[ymmot31]

Rowan Co. clerk is a Shiite Baptist. Those are the worst ones.

 

[KopiKat]

Marriage is a fundamental right, dipshit.

1. 
   
   
   • Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205, 211 (1888): Marriage is “the most important relation in life” and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
   • Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923): The right “to marry, establish a home and bring up children” is a central part of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.
   • Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942): Marriage “one of the basic civil rights of man,” “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.”
   • Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965): “We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
   • Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
   • Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371, 376, 383 (1971): “[M]arriage involves interests of basic importance to our society” and is “a fundamental human relationship.”
   • Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U.S. 632, 639-40 (1974): “This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
   • Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 499 (1977) (plurality): “[W]hen the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, this Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.”
   • Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977): “t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing and education.”
     [*]Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978): “[T]he right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.”
     [*]Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 95 (1987): “[T]he decision to marry is a fundamental right” and an “expression[ ] of emotional support and public commitment.”
     [*]Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992): “These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”
     [*]M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 116 (1996): “Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as ‘of basic importance in our society,’ rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”
     [*]Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 574 (2003): “[O]ur laws and tradition afford constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and education. … Persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.”

Same-sex marriage is not more protected and more guaranteed by an unlimited measure than traditional marriage. They are now protected precisely the same amount.

Those are each of them wonderful examples of where the institution of marriage has been discussed to a philosophical extent during case rulings. Lovely research from a poetic paralegal point of view. But in none of those examples is there a mandate for an action on the part of the states or to any office of a state.

The June 26 ruling on behalf of same sex marriage does not limit itself to philosophical banter. Rather, it mandates action to the states to ensure a process for same sex marriage is licensed. It doesn't do this by discussing the inherent liberty alone, nor by stopping at what the court has "long recognized." It says you will f'king damn well do this when it comes to same sex marriage (sanction it).

 

[KopiKat]

Each county clerk shall use the form prescribed by the Department for Libraries and Archives when issuing a marriage license.

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.100 (West)

The county clerk shall receive for the following services the following fees:
(19) Marriage license, indexing, recording, and issuing certificate thereof..$24.00

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 64.012 (West)

The former statue requires use a form. The latter requires receipt of fee. Were is the statute requiring the service?

 

[MegaBlue05]

I agree with your overall point, but Souter hasn't been on the court in more than 5 years. In general, currently there are 4 liberal and 4 conservative justices. Kennedy is the moderate swing vote.

None of this has anything to do with whether this clerk should do her job. She has no right, constitutional or otherwise, to refuse to follow the law. The fact that Bevin has announced his support for her is just baffling to me.

It's actually smart politics in a place like Kentucky..

The thumpers are fired up because they can't use their little book to keep a group of people they don't like from getting married. Most thumpers are red team (even though Kim Davis is blue team, but I see a party switch coming) and seem to want religion in the government.

Gotta be lovin' that Jebus more than the other guy to get elected in Kentucky. Bevin knows this. Conway is firmly in support of gay marriage, so Bevin is running as fast as he can to the polar oppositeside of the issue.

The upcoming governor's race likely will be the worst in Kentucky history. Both candidates are beyond meh. One's an arrogant jackass. The other's an ignorant jackass. I'll let you guess who is who.

It would be cool if our candidates would both say "I want everyone to have equal rights in the eyes of the government, so let's talk jobs and the economy" but the theocrats can't be satisfied unless we're all living like evengelical Christians.

 

[BristolCat]

I'm starting to wonder if the real Kopikat died alone months ago and the raccoons rummaging through his apartment occasionally walk over the laptop keyboard, and you guys are arguing with it.

 

[_Chase_]

 

[ktbug]

If it were a Muslim clerk saying that woman couldn't drive, the religious folks would be losing their ever-loving minds over sharia law.
Keep your religion out of it.

 

[Onomatopoeia]

Anyone else think she is just doing this for a show? Maybe she has higher office aspirations to run for in the future? And she knows this essentially guarantees her being elected anywhere in Kentucky.

I bet she could care less in all honesty.

 

[Willy4UK]

Can't wait till Artificial Intelligence is invented.

"Judge, I ain't giving no murruge license to a robot. God didn't say anything about murrying your computer"