U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-29-2015, 12:15 AM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,248,572 times
Reputation: 9846

Advertisements

When is she going to be jailed? She can't perform her required duties, and is breaking the law, therefore she needs to go, regardless of what you think about gay marriage or her stance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-29-2015, 12:35 AM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
12,351 posts, read 7,505,330 times
Reputation: 15950
The woman in question obviously has no sense of perspective or balance as to what her role allows her to do, and what judgments she is restrained from passing; in such circumstances she should be legally removed from office as soon as possible.

However, most of those calling for sterner penalties are merely parroting the self-righteous outrage of another group with both a specific agenda and a reputation for nasty tactics.

A pox on both your houses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2015, 12:43 AM
 
Location: Caverns measureless to man...
7,247 posts, read 4,672,415 times
Reputation: 16393
The problem is, she is not going to be removed from office. It's almost impossible. She needs to be impeached in order to be removed, and in this primitive evangelical Christian backwater of a state, no legislator is going to vote to impeach her. He'd be a lame duck from that moment on in almost every legislative district in Kentucky.

So yeah, the only recourse to get this fruitbat to do her job is to charge her with a criminal offense or jail her for contempt. That's it. There are no other options. Short of that, she can do her job (or not do her job) any way she likes, and nobody can touch her.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2015, 12:59 AM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
12,351 posts, read 7,505,330 times
Reputation: 15950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Albert_The_Crocodile View Post
The problem is, she is not going to be removed from office. It's almost impossible. She needs to be impeached in order to be removed, and in this primitive evangelical Christian backwater of a state, no legislator is going to vote to impeach her. He'd be a lame duck from that moment on in almost every legislative district in Kentucky.

So yeah, the only recourse to get this fruitbat to do her job is to charge her with a criminal offense or jail her for contempt. That's it. There are no other options. Short of that, she can do her job (or not do her job) any way she likes, and nobody can touch her.
You are buying into the same old steamroller tactics common to all the followers and components of the "progressive" agenda. State law and regional culture and customs are getting in the way of your objective, so you'll appeal to Big Brother to harness greater Federal power in order to have your way.

And in the process, you're not above appealing to stereotypes which denigrate all residents of an entire state as mouth-breathing dysfunctionals and prudes.

At this point, no one has explained what other legal measures might be available to correct this mistake. But the other side can smell blood, and over there in Left Field, it's a given that the end is more important than the means.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2015, 01:40 AM
 
10,089 posts, read 6,314,583 times
Reputation: 8395
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC View Post
Ky. clerk asks high court to intervene in marriage case

It is time Ms. Davis, the Apostolic Christian believer, "devote" as she claims she is, be sued to the extent possible in KY. At this point, I'd love to see her lose her house even if her job is safe. Just because she has a problem with SSM does not entitle her to deny others benefits.
It's not like these couples can't find someone to marry them. I imagine some of these clerks were caught off guard so to speak. Everyone hired after the ruling should be expected to perform the marriages, but the older hires could be grandfathered out. I don't think that would be a bad compromise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2015, 02:20 AM
 
Location: Caverns measureless to man...
7,247 posts, read 4,672,415 times
Reputation: 16393
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
You are buying into the same old steamroller tactics common to all the followers and components of the "progressive" agenda. State law and regional culture and customs are getting in the way of your objective, so you'll appeal to Big Brother to harness greater Federal power in order to have your way.

Say what??? Jesus Christ, you have an incredibly overactive imagination. We're a nation of laws; one of my minimum expectations of government is that it upholds the laws that it has passed, and uses the full weight of its power to enforce those laws on behalf of its citizens whenever necessary.

You have a problem with that? What is it about our system of government that you find unacceptable? Personally, I have a great deal of respect for our Constitution and admiration for the men who risked their lives to write it; perhaps if you don't, you'd be happier living somewhere else that is more suited to whatever belief system you hold. Someplace that only enforces the laws you like, and ignores the ones you don't. Doesn't sound as though America is the right place for you.



Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post

And in the process, you're not above appealing to stereotypes which denigrate all residents of an entire state as mouth-breathing dysfunctionals and prudes.
Oh, give it a rest. Good god, you see one hiding behind every tree, don't you?

I live here, I know Kentucky politics and demographics. It's a simple statement of fact - this is the heart of the Bible Belt, she's a folk hero among the fundamentalist godshouters, and any Kentucky state legislator who votes to remove her from office is more likely to succeed only in removing himself from office next time he's up for re-election. It's a simple statement of fact; what is it about your mind that immediately interprets it as "appealing to a stereotype that denigrates all residents of a state as mouth-breathing dysfunctionals and prudes?"


Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post

At this point, no one has explained what other legal measures might be available to correct this mistake. But the other side can smell blood, and over there in Left Field, it's a given that the end is more important than the means.
Sez you, but you apparently don't bother ever reading anything but the internal narrative that plays inside your head. If you had bothered reading anything else on the subject, it's possible you'd have stumbled across this -

Quote:
According to the county attorney, there's no other action the Rowan County government could take and the government has no other options.

He said they cannot remove or suspend her.
So yeah, someone has explained it. Of course, that doesn't reconcile with what you've already decided, so you'll probably reject it out of hand. After all, the county attorney is probably just "buying into the same old steamroller tactics common to all the followers and components of the "progressive" agenda," and therefore isn't a credible source. Right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2015, 04:42 AM
 
Location: My beloved Bluegrass
14,729 posts, read 10,622,245 times
Reputation: 19901
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoloforLife View Post
Why hasn't she been fired. Just about any other employee who refused to do their job would be on the street by now. If she was this determine with her relationships, she would not have gone down the aisle 4 times and counting.
She can't be fired, she's elected. She will not be impeached, Kentucky is a blood red state with one of the highest percentage of the populous against SSM in the nation. Any elected official who tried to pursue it would find themselves out of office, not her. The only thing this is doing to her as an elected official is making her more popular. It should be interesting to see how this plays out, because she isn't going to be forced unless it Comes from the national level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by take57 View Post
This is so simple it's barely worth discussing: Termination for failure to perform job duties.
Given the above, the simple solution for the couple is to just go to another county. Kentucky does not require you be a resident of the county to obtain a marriage license. Rowen county is surrounded by 7 counties whose seats are between 12-30 minutes away. A mere 1 hr, 10 minutes away is the most progressive area of the state, Fayette County, home of Lexington, where a marriage could be obtained without any fanfare.

Quote:
The Census Bureau found in 2000, for example, that Lexington led Kentucky in its concentration of households headed by same-sex partners. On a national level, Fayette ranked 153rd out of 3,141 counties.
Lexington to become third-largest U.S. city with an openly-gay mayor | Mayoral Election | Kentucky.com
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.Moderator - Arkansas & subforums, Asia, Kentucky & subforums, Military Life, and P&OC
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2015, 06:39 AM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
12,351 posts, read 7,505,330 times
Reputation: 15950
I will show as much concern in this issue when the City of San Francisco shows similar concern over the protection offered to murderer Francisco Sanchez.

The point remains, the group of special interests operating under the "progressive" banner shows a lot more compassion when what they view as their rights are infringed upon, then when some example of the failure of their pet ideas injures (or worse) a responsible citizen.

Last edited by 2nd trick op; 08-29-2015 at 07:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2015, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Type 0.7 Kardashev
10,577 posts, read 7,274,031 times
Reputation: 37474
Of course, we've seen this sad and pathetic story play out before.
Quote:
In 1967, Liane Peters, an immigrant from Germany, fell in love with a quiet, handsome man she worked with at a Miami bakery. The couple went together to the Dade County courthouse and asked for a marriage license. But she was white and he was black, and a county judge turned them away.

Two months earlier, the United States Supreme Court had struck down laws across the country forbidding interracial marriages, and the waves of resistance that rippled across the South took years to dissipate.
Resistance to gay marriages travels a well-worn path

There has never been a time in this nation's history when a form of discrimination has been prohibited, that the discriminators did not stand up and bleat about how they're the 'real victims'... ... for not being allowed to continue their discriminatory ways.

They've always been losers. And they still are - literally and figuratively.

Oh... and as for the aforementioned interracial couple?
Quote:
They are still married, 47 years later. Van Hook is 82 and his wife is 76. They have two sons and three grandkids, she said. They still live in a little house with a big yard and garden they bought soon after their wedding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-29-2015, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Minnesota
2,526 posts, read 1,232,822 times
Reputation: 2758
Quote:
Originally Posted by elan View Post
It's not like these couples can't find someone to marry them. I imagine some of these clerks were caught off guard so to speak. Everyone hired after the ruling should be expected to perform the marriages, but the older hires could be grandfathered out. I don't think that would be a bad compromise.
The clerk in question doesn't officiate marriages …

A legal marriage requires a "marriage 'license'," and the clerk refuses to issue them ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top