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.
I disagree with what Ms. Davis did. She was wrong as her job was to issue licenses for marriages and she refused to do her job based on her religious beliefs. But, in my opinion these men aren't doing themselves or the gay rights cause any favors by trying to financially punish this woman. Filing a lawsuit makes this couple look vindictive and punitive.
I wonder what damages they are claiming happened to them?
Maybe they should sue government for all the times they were denied equal protection under the law when government was against same sex marriage?
After all government decides what is and what isn't a legal marriage. Just think of all the good that's done over the years. Undoing something that should never have been governments job in the first place. Using force to accept or deny marriage is tyranny.
I wonder what damages they are claiming happened to them?
Maybe they should sue government for all the times they were denied equal protection under the law when government was against same sex marriage?
After all government decides what is and what isn't a legal marriage. Just think of all the good that's done over the years. Undoing something that should never have been governments job in the first place. Using force to accept or deny marriage is tyranny.
You mean like how the government defines it via force of law? Seriously, ook and think.
Its OK to use force of law to not allow those people to marry, but OK to use it to allow those other folks too?
This whole is bull and what the rights of Ms. Davis. This is why we call this Civil Unions, not Marriage.
Ours actually says "marriage". It only took us 42 years together to get there, but happily so.
I really don't care what its called, but there were certain protection and benefits that are bestowed upon 2 people who willingly commit to a lifetime with each other.
Sadly a great number of couples come nowhere near spending as long together as we have. Despite being denied by a vote of the people \during all these years still thought of ourselves as married, or civil unioned if you prefer.
If you haven't hit the 42 year mark or more with your one and only-- hopefully you shall.
A same-sex couple who was denied a marriage license by Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis can now legally sue her, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The couple have indicated they intend to go forward with the suit.
Good she should be in the poor house for disobeying the law and denying homosexuals individuals their newly granted civil rights. I think I said back a year or two ago when she was not following the law that she should have to pay restitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GHOSTRIDER AZ
This whole is bull and what the rights of Ms. Davis. This is why we call this Civil Unions, not Marriage.
As an elected official she had to act within the law. She didn't. Her rights ended when she had to grant rights to the homosexuals seeking a Kentucky marriage license for the newly established law of the land.
As for civil unions, technically traditional heterosexual marriages are civil unions under the law. Marriage itself is a religious and social construct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
I disagree with this. It wasn't a settled matter at the time, and I kind of dislike going after people who believed they were acting within the law.
Unless of course this occurred after that point.
Um, these lawsuits against David were for what happened after the Supreme Court banned laws that denied the rights for homosexual marriage. One specifically was the one that led to her issues with the law and if I remember correctly sent her to jail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee
I disagree with what Ms. Davis did. She was wrong as her job was to issue licenses for marriages and she refused to do her job based on her religious beliefs. But, in my opinion these men aren't doing themselves or the gay rights cause any favors by trying to financially punish this woman. Filing a lawsuit makes this couple look vindictive and punitive.
They should be though, Davis denied their constitutional rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by texan2yankee
Her signature is no longer needed on Marriage Licenses, so it is moot.
Gay marriage is the law of the land. These men won. Homosexuals and Lesbians won. Why not be gracious in victory?
But at the time of these individuals thatare suing her did go to the county clerk office, it was. She denied their civil rights and restitution is appropriate due to denying their civil rights.
Last edited by mkpunk; 05-04-2017 at 06:39 AM..
Reason: Realized I skipped a quote reply.
It was settled at that point. The Supreme Court ruling was in June 2015, this was in September 2015
The court violated the law. Our constitution gives this power to regulate civil laws to the states as part of the 10th amendment. I do not recognize the illegal action of these robed tyrants who are illegally creating laws as if they were the legislative branch. Kim Davis was right to resist,her state government should have supported her.
The court violated the law. Our constitution gives this power to regulate civil laws to the states as part of the 10th amendment. I do not recognize the illegal action of these robed tyrants who are illegally creating laws as if they were the legislative branch. Kim Davis was right to resist,her state government should have supported her.
The tenth amendment only can be used so long as it don't break any other part of the Constitution whether originally in there or changed by an amendment. These laws broke the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment despite allowing the 10th to have teeth. See the issue?
The tenth amendment only can be used so long as it don't break any other part of the Constitution whether originally in there or changed by an amendment. These laws broke the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment despite allowing the 10th to have teeth. See the issue?
The 14th has been completely misinterpreted by judges wanting the federal government to have more power than it should over states. The only way the 14th should apply is if marriage were federal law, which it isn't.
If the 14th were applied that way across the board, a person in Illinois couldn't be prosecuted for smoking marijuana due to it being legal in Colorado.
BTW, I am in favor of gay marriage and I think pot, a plant, shouldn't be illegal.
The law sides with man in our nation today. Davis sides with God. I support Davis instead of glorifying mans sin. She has God on her side- "If God be for us, who can be against us"- Romans 8:31.
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.
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.
Undoing something that should never have been governments job in the first place. Using force to accept or deny marriage is tyranny.
