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.
Yes a granting authority oversees the wedding. It's still not legal.
Apparently you want to argue for argues sake. Find a mirror.
Any officer can say NO in this state. A rabbi doesn't have to perform the ceremony in Muslim tradition. That's what this judge did.
I would say disparaging terms but that's not law. What I posted is. You can't refute the law so you try to cherry pick. As stated previously: I was married by a pagan in Florida. None was binding until the clerk verified the CEREMONY. Only then was it legal.
Seriously, how more black and white does it need to be? Do you understand why Kim Davis got in trouble? That's where legal starts.
A couple is not restricted from going to another county. Honestly....you can't get a judge to sanction your pet sin? Go find another. You don't have a right to demand others validate your lifestyle.
What is their pet sin? Why should government be concerned with "sin", which is a religious concept? Why should a citizen need to go to a different county to receive government services?
Yes a granting authority oversees the wedding. It's still not legal.
Apparently you want to argue for argues sake. Find a mirror.
Any officer can say NO in this state. A rabbi doesn't have to perform the ceremony in Muslim tradition. That's what this judge did.
I would say disparaging terms but that's not law. What I posted is. You can't refute the law so you try to cherry pick. As stated previously: I was married by a pagan in Florida. None was binding until the clerk verified the CEREMONY. Only then was it legal.
Seriously, how more black and white does it need to be? Do you understand why Kim Davis got in trouble? That's where legal starts.
You know, there is no cause to be insulting. I am not "arguing for the sake of arguing". I am pointing out that the link you provided does not agree with what you are saying. I am not in any way attempting to "refute the law".
A rabbi can say "no", because a rabbi is a religious official. A judge presiding over a public courthouse is not a religious official.
What is their pet sin? Why should government be concerned with "sin", which is a religious concept? Why should a citizen need to go to a different county to receive government services?
Again: the government is NOT interfering with this or any other marriage. A person tried that. Her name is Kim Davis. She did jail time.
Drop your emotional argument and focus on legalities. Everyone condemning this judge is doing just that. I think he's silly. But it's within statute.
A flip side to authorized atheists: marry, or solemnize legally, under strict baptist/Catholic/Jewish prescriptions. Utter the words 'under God'...
I guarantee I get attacked, I also guarantee none is legal based.
Again: the government is NOT interfering with this or any other marriage. A person tried that. Her name is Kim Davis. She did jail time.
Drop your emotional argument and focus on legalities. Everyone condemning this judge is doing just that. I think he's silly. But it's within statute.
A flip side to authorized atheists: marry, or solemnize legally, under strict baptist/Catholic/Jewish prescriptions. Utter the words 'under God'...
I guarantee I get attacked, I also guarantee none is legal based.
I don't have an emotional argument. My view is that it is not legal for a government employee to decline to provide services to a member of the public based on the government employee's own religious beliefs.
You know, there is no cause to be insulting. I am not "arguing for the sake of arguing". I am pointing out that the link you provided does not agree with what you are saying. I am not in any way attempting to "refute the law".
A rabbi can say "no", because a rabbi is a religious official. A judge presiding over a public courthouse is not a religious official.
A judge can do the same! None are acting as officers of the law. None. It's not insulting. It is legal and defined.
I don't even agree with him. But I'm sick of people reading crap and then making legal points. Your opinion is yours. Fine. Own it. But in this case, legally, it is wrong.
And none of the eloquently worded geniuses that agree with ffrf are weighing in because they can't refute krs 402.05
A judge can do the same! None are acting as officers of the law. None. It's not insulting. It is legal and defined.
I don't even agree with him. But I'm sick of people reading crap and then making legal points. Your opinion is yours. Fine. Own it. But in this case, legally, it is wrong.
And none of the eloquently worded geniuses that agree with ffrf are weighing in because they can't refute krs 402.05
I'm no expert in law, but I would risk a large bet that a Judge is a legal official and a Rabbi is not. Whether there is some sot of get out -for a Judge being a non -legal official in his legal function will no doubt come out in which way the legal ruling goes. My money is still on his being told to do his job - all of it - without picking and choosing whether to do it or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100
What is their pet sin? Why should government be concerned with "sin", which is a religious concept? Why should a citizen need to go to a different county to receive government services?
Damm!!! where's the...Ah... Don't you just love the "If you don't like it, leave' gambit? Don't you just long for the day that Vizio complains that he can no longer be the sort of Christian he wants to be where he lives and we can tell him to move to anther county?
A judge can do the same! None are acting as officers of the law. None. It's not insulting. It is legal and defined.
I don't even agree with him. But I'm sick of people reading crap and then making legal points. Your opinion is yours. Fine. Own it. But in this case, legally, it is wrong.
And none of the eloquently worded geniuses that agree with ffrf are weighing in because they can't refute krs 402.05
That's because the issue isn't about KRS 402.005, which deals with marriages. It's about whatever section of the Kentucky laws describe the powers and responsibilities of judges. The entire argument hinges on whether the laws granting judges the authority to perform marriages say they "may" solemnize marriages, or whether it says they "shall" do so, when requested, as a part of the role of being a judge.
If the law isn't clear whether this function is a "may" or a "shall," then the lawsuit will settle the mater. Continuing to post about the marriage statute (402.005) is not helpful.
And he has a right to decline to do a wedding. There is no constitutional requirment for him to violate his conscience.
Actually no. It's common practice for public officials to be expected to set aside any disagreement with whatever the law officially says and do their duty.
As an example, a judge who believes the war on drugs is unjust and so dismisses every case dealing with a drug user is in the wrong. I agree, the war on drugs is rightfully considered unjust by a lot of people. But a judge who has a disagreement with the law cannot simply refuse his duty. And this applied to any public official who's job is to grant marriages. Personally disagreement is not a valid thing in public work.
As I understand it, there was a time when employees of the government weren't even allowed to vote.
That's because the issue isn't about KRS 402.005, which deals with marriages. It's about whatever section of the Kentucky laws describe the powers and responsibilities of judges. The entire argument hinges on whether the laws granting judges the authority to perform marriages say they "may" solemnize marriages, or whether it says they "shall" do so, when requested, as a part of the role of being a judge.
If the law isn't clear whether this function is a "may" or a "shall," then the lawsuit will settle the mater. Continuing to post about the marriage statute (402.005) is not helpful.
It is a 'may'... I posted that earlier.
It's listed under the Duties of Elected Officials, Miscellaneous powers subsection.
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.
Don't you just love the "If you don't like it, leave' gambit? Don't you just long for the day that Vizio complains that he can no longer be the sort of Christian he wants to be where he lives and we can tell him to move to anther county?
