This explains lil Davy perfectly. It's not his fault, he is obviously a products of inbreeding. Court Tells Homophobic County Clerk She Must Issue Marriage Licenses To Same-Sex Couples A federal appeals court has upheld a ruling ordering a Kentucky county clerk to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis objects to same-sex marriage for religious reasons. She stopped issuing marriage licenses the day after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned state bans on same-sex marriage. Two gay couples and two straight couples sued her. A U.S. district judge ordered Davis to issue the marriage licenses, but later delayed his order so that Davis could have time to appeal to the 6th circuit. Wednesday, the appeals court denied Davis’ request for a stay. “It cannot be defensibly argued that the holder of the Rowan County Clerk’s office, apart from who personally occupies that office, may decline to act in conformity with the United States Constitution as interpreted by a dispositive holding of the United States Supreme Court,” judges Damon J. Keith, John M. Rogers and Bernice B. Donald wrote for the court. “There is thus little or no likelihood that the Clerk in her official capacity will prevail on appeal.” April Miller and Karen Roberts were one of the gay couples who sued Davis. Miller read the ruling on her phone in the living room of the house they share down a country road on the outskirts of Morehead. Roberts, her partner for more than a decade, peered over her shoulder, smiling, humming, tears welling up under her glasses. The news flashes across their TV screen and they hugged, and their hug turned into a brief slow dance on the living room rug. The phone started ringing, but they ignored it for a minute. They felt vindicated, they said. They got out the boxes holding their matching wedding bands, bought days after the Supreme Court’s decision in June. They are simple white gold bands, ringed in diamonds. “One step closer,” Miller said. “We might be able to get married in September.” Mat Staver, an attorney for Davis, said he was disappointed with the ruling. He said he plans to discuss options with Davis, including an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. “The court of appeals did not provide any religious accommodation rights to individuals, which makes little sense because at the end of the day it’s individuals that are carrying out the acts of the office,” Staver said. “They don’t lose their individual constitutional rights just because they are employed in a public office.” It’s unclear how Davis will react if she were to ultimately lose her appeals. She testified in federal court last month she would “deal with that when the time comes.” Saturday, she spoke to thousands of supporters at a religious freedom rally at the state capitol, saying: “I need your prayers … to continue to stand firm in what we believe.” “Regardless of what any man puts on a piece of paper, the law of nature is not going to change,” Davis told the crowd. Miller and Roberts said they know the legal fight will stretch on. Davis continued to refuse to issue marriage licenses after other judges’ rulings. And they suspect she will continue to refuse after this one. “We get all excited. But we know a letdown is coming again,” Miller said. “It’s going to keep going. It’s gonna be a long haul.” “But it felt so good for a minute,” Roberts chimed in.
Dang, moron joe is in quite a lather this morning. What has your panties in such a wad, moron joe, didn't make your student loan quota?
Oh boy! Hillbilly Davy is trying to insult me. Dang! What would YOU know about education, YOU live in Kentucky.
A marriage license has nothing to do with the religious right to marry. The only reason why marriage licenses were created in the first place was to prevent interracial couples from getting married, so now that we have "marriage equality", the real solution would be to remove government involvement from marriage altogether. If 2 people want to get married, no one's going to stop them. They just don't get a piece of government paper that says they're married.
No argument from me on that state comparison. Illinois has a republican governor and a democratic legislature and I can't stand any of them. Illinois has had as many Democrat governors and they have had Republican governors and they all suck. I can't wait to retire and move out west again. P.S. How's that Rick Perry support going for you?
WASHINGTON -- A Kentucky county clerk on Tuesday refused to issue marriage licenses for two same-sex couples despite a Supreme Court ruling ordering the clerk to do so. A video posted to Facebook by WKYT shows the gay couples repeatedly demanding that the clerk, Kim Davis, issue them marriage licenses. "We are not issuing marriage licenses today," Davis says in the video. "Under whose authority are you not issuing licenses?" asks one of the men. "Under God's authority," Davis responds. The Rowan County clerk then asks the men to leave, before retreating to the back of the office herself.
Why is the government in the marriage licensing business these days anyway? If two (or more) people want to enter into a marriage contract, the government's involvement should be no more than recording the contract. Governments shouldn't be issuing marriage licenses. If people want to get "married" (btw, marriage is not much different than forming a corporation), they should go to a lawyer. That way, true marriage/incorporation equality can occur. For example, JoeNation would then be able to marry/incorporate his son(s) or vice versa. I'm just using that as an example, but anyone who supports TRUE marriage/incorporation equality would agree with that scenario.
I have a better question. Why do some people believe that they have the right to deny anyone the right to marry based on their personal religious beliefs? I understand why a church might not want to marry some people and they have every right to deny that service but no one has the right to deny a state sanctioned marriage based on their personal religious beliefs. If a person feels that they can go against performing their paid duties because of their religion, they need to quit or be fired for those beliefs. If this Kentucky clerk feels that strongly about her religion, she should quit. I don't want to be in a same-sex marriage but I will defend the hell out the right for those that do to have that right. This clerk needs to lose her job and see if unemployment is a better alternative for her religion.
Let me take that one step further. Why does anyone believe they can deny the right to someone else for ANY reason? For example, you would deny the right for a father to marry a son. Or a brother to marry his sister. Or a grandmother to marry her grandson. Why would you be against that? Do they? On what grounds? Religious grounds? What about the cake bakers who want to "deny their service" to gay couples because it goes against their religions? Would you let the cake bakers deny service, too? Hence, my position that we should take the state out of the marriage-sanctioning business. Well, she's an elected official, so she can't be fired. She could be recalled or she could quit. I doubt that she'll quit, so a recall will probably be the only recourse. Not necessarily. She needs to realize that it's the state issuing the license, not her. Until the state gets out of the marriage-sanctioning business, she can keep her job, practice her religion and let someone else in her office issue the licenses. First, why don't you want to be in a same-sex marriage? What do you have against it? You may as well say something racist like "I don't want to be married to a black" or something anti-polygamist like "I don't want to be married to more than one person". And, no, you've certainly proven that you won't "defend the hell out of the right" because you've stated many times that you don't support true marriage equality insofar as allowing close relations (regardless of their sex) to marry. I've never understood why it matters to you. Nah, I don't want to pay more taxes to pay for her Food Stamps. Like I said, she should have someone else in the office issue the license if it bothers her that much. In the meantime, you should be on the bandwagon for the state to get out of the marriage-sanctioning business.
Trying to equate same-sex marriage with incest is the same as equating same-sex marriage to beastiality and pedophilia. It is a logical fallacy that doesn't equate to a rational argument and never will no matter how many times you try. Churches have always had the right to marry who they want. Try getting married in the Catholic church sometime if you've been divorced. Good luck. I couldn't care less what churches decide to do. They are going to live or die by their own edicts. Hopefully die. As long as states do issue licenses, they had better abide by the law of the land, not "Gods Law". I don't care one way or the other if states issue licenses or not. I was Common law married anyway.
I guess you just have to decide if a couple's desire to get married trumps another's right to freely practice their religion.
You know, just a few years ago, people would say, "Equating traditional marriage to same-sex marriage is like equating marriage to bestiality". That perception has begun to change, thankfully, because people are becoming willing to accept the fact that marriages (of all stripes and colors) should be equal. Truly equal. If any couple (or group of people) wants to get married, why are you against it? What does it matter to you? At least in modern times, states are the entities that "marry" (or incorporate) people, not the churches. Churches merely perform a ceremony. Again, the church doesn't "marry" anyone; the state performs that service. If the Catholic church doesn't want to perform a ceremony for someone who is divorced, they have that right. Would you fight for that right? Hallelujah! Why so hateful? You're always wanting someone or something to die. Embrace life, my friend. That's why I've always favored incorporation over marriage in the legal sense. No muss, no fuss. Just get a lawyer, incorporate and the state will record the paperwork for you. No one cares how many people are in your corporation, how they're related to you, if they're all of the same sex or what race they happen to be. Common law marriage is fine, except in the case of some legal issues. I trust your marriage has never had any legal issues you've had to overcome, so common law marriage may work for you. For others, it may not. I always think it is best to do things legally.
But select other people do....people with the "proper" life-style? Are you one of those, "enter your religion here and we'll get back to you on whether or not you qualify"-kind? Honestly. ""
No. no, no... People aren't saying that. They are saying that the distinction between heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriage is silly and it is. What does and does not get accepted at some point in the future is completely irrelevant to the situation today. That's not the issue. The issue is that churches have not been forced to marry anyone straight or gay that they didn't want to. My point clearly wasn't whether the state of the church sanctioned the marriage. Can you try and stay on one issue. Now you are making my argument. Or Amen! Live or die, either way, they make no difference to me. Most are harmless but some cross the line. How is the State incorporating a marriage any different than issuing a marriage license? It's still the State giving it's permission or not. And yet a Judge still issued a marriage license. We still had to pay the 10 bucks or whatever it costed. I saw no difference.
Continue that line of logic. The couple who wants to get married have a religious right to be married. You are saying your religious rights trumps theirs. You do not have that right, both from the perspective of "having the freedom" to and for being correct in your assumptions.