Ok Ya I agree with the woman, u don't have it give licenses to those people if you don't want to. You are welcome to your own views. They don't need to be married
I'm sorry, the answer we were looking for is "You can'tavoid doing the job you were elected to do and expect no cconsequences
They might as well be straight *facepalm* I guess having big toys ready at hand works better for them
If it is not a law then how can you be found in contempt of court There is no legislation on gay marriage refer back to the marriage defense act of 1996 which actually helps davis in her defense which is law that states marriage is between a man and a woman So until there is a law that says same sex marriage is legal the paper it is written on has no face value
Wow don you just don't let things go. The Supreme Court made a ruling that allowed anyone of consenting age to marry regardless of gender of the partners. This ruling here infact 103 pages of reading but the important part is the 14th amendment says you can't discreminate based on gender of the partners in a marriage. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14 ... 6_3204.pdf Davis was held In contempt for refusing to follow a judges court order not breaking a law.
Don. Believe me, we are trying to help you. First, there is natural law - basically, anything goes, complete freedom. However, when people gathered into groups to live together, they found they needed rules to keep people from killing each other off - hence the idea of laws. Laws, generally, are restrictions on freedom - for example, killing someone without justification is called "murder" and is against a written law. Some Countries, like the US, decided that there are certain rights that belong to individuals, that the government must not take. In the US, these rights are mostly enshrined in the Constitution. Other than these rights, most laws are restrictions (generally). The way these rights are usually defined is either by statute, or by case law. For example, the right to own a handgun is usually not written in a state code. That is because laws are usually written to limit what one can do rather than enumerate each individual thing one can do. Following that example, when a government passes a law trying to restrict people from owning a handgun, they challenge the law against their rights under the Constitution. If they win, the restrictions are removed, and they have a legal "right" to that handgun, whether or not anyone ever writes a law saying they can have one. In this instance, marriage equality was adjudged by the Supreme Court as a "right" protected by the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, no state or government agent has any right to deny citizens of this right, whether or not anyone specifically drafts a law. Drafting laws enumerating rights that already are in place or have been held as such would be a waste of time. The Defense of Marriage act is defunct as a matter of law, based on the Supreme Court ruling. There isn't even a need to repeal it. So marriage equality is the law of the land, and is fully protected, whether or not anyone drafts a redundant piece of paper. When you pass your American civics class you can thank me.
So you believe politicians (the ones who pass laws) are in a better position to understand than the Supreme Court and it's affiliated judges and law experts? Politicians make laws Judges correct laws when applicable.
From American thinker Elected Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis refused to grant a marriage license to homosexuals. She did so on religious grounds but it is not the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment that justified her refusal but the 10th Amendment which recites: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.” What the U.S. Supreme Court rules is not the “Law of the Land.” The Law of the Land is the Constitution of the United States. Relying on a single clause, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment which was designed to protect the rights of former slaves, the majority of the Court consisting of four political appointees and one “independent” made a decision “at odds not only with the Constitution but with the principles upon which our nation was built”, as Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent. The majority decision held that all the states must give under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment the law of a single state declaring that homosexuals have the right to marry even when thirty states have laws that state that marriage can only be a union of a man and a woman. Nothing in the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the right to nullify a State’s law that marriage can only take place between a man and a woman. Kim Davis, the county clerk may refuse to marry homosexuals because the Supreme Court unconstitutionally exceeded its constitutional authority. Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 ... z3lMcELjS8 Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
That's great, fantastic. Oh, who creates amendments to the constitution? In your eyes is it unchangable? Things evolve, things become accepted, relying on a single old document is absolutely ridiculous in an age ruled by sexuality and computers. What right does a person have to deny another marriage?
Don all Supreme Court justices are politically appointed. Pretty sure most federal judges are too. That said a dissenting opinion means Supreme Court Justice Thomas voiced his opinion on the verdict. However that doesn't mean that much as the majority verdict carried and the ruling holds. The ruling represents the law of the land until such a time as another case is heard to impact this ruling. But historically once a right has been given it's very hard to take it away.
There's no sense in trying to explain this to them. The Supreme Court made it's ruling and until it is challenged and won against the ruling stands. That being said, all of those guys think homosexuals aren't equally entitled to the same rights they are for whatever reason or justification they have. Let them be, evolution of society historically leaves people as such trampled and grasping for straws and or remembering some altered version of "how great it used to be" when in reality their lives are not affected personally for the most part.
Don may have flunked Civics 101, but he is earning high marks in addle-minded cut-and-paste. Perhaps he would agree that States have every right to regulate and even ban guns, because of the 10th Amendment, and the dissents in McDonald and Heller. (If a dissent and the 10th Amendment are all that is required to allow States to strip people of their Constitutional rights, then the Federal Government cannot enforce any of the Rights in the Constitution). Thanks Don, you've just opened the door to the States legally banning guns. Good work! (We also have to ignore the 14th Amendment).