Been busy. I looked in to the case a little more and found some interesting facts that the media seems to be ignoring entirely. A. Kim Davies swore an oath to both the Constitution of the United States, AND to the constitution of Kentucky. This is key (and for those who want sources, I will gladly pull them up) as the Kentucky Constitution is AGAINST gay marriage. She never swore an oath to the laws or her job. She swore an oath to the constitutions. This changed things considerably. B. Another thing is, she offered the county judge a compromise. She would allow her deputies to do the marriages, as long as her name was not on the paper, thus washing her hands of the situation, and not violating her religious principles. The judge would not have it. Another fact that is left out. C. Various other states, such as Texas, have put into place laws that protect pastors, clerks, etc, from things like this. If they do not want to marry the couple, it can go to another nearby clerk/etc, who is willing to do it. A compromise. One that works well enough for both sides for the time being. But Kentucky will not put anything like this into place, because the Governor is a democrat. His clerks have been left to either violate their religious views, quit, or go to jail, like Kim Davies. It's a big fat example for everybody else.
I don't like the marriage thing either but I really don't care let them be as long as I don't have one pushing up on me I say let it be if they want to get married let them there more better stuff to worry about in this world then gay people like perverted people that likes kid that's more bigger then two gay people getting married enough said happy kawing
That is also wrong. The court OFFERED HER that compromise, to let her deputy courts precede with the marriage license and she declined it. So the judge sent her to jail and ordered the deputy clerks to proceed with the licenses.
Also, for the Texas state. That is still in violation of the law. Your religion is not to be mixed in with your government job. Kentucky courts have already made judged this as law. A Texas court can make it where the clerks are obligated to file these marriages license despite what ever state law Texas makes because it is a constitutional right for gays to get married and all laws going against the constitution are not valid. Unless there is a proper federal amendment.
Such as the one in Kentucky. And you keep forgetting that the law that forces these circumstances in the first place is unconstitutional. I implore you to watch some videos by Ted Cruz on the subject. He puts it in perfect perspective. The media however, hates to let him get a word in. They've done their absolute best to shut him out, both parties.
Zethor from what I've read she refused to allow other clerks sign any licenses, and also was refusing to allow hetro couples have licenses as she's being sued by mixed gender couples she refused that is making her look more like some one trying to be obstructive to force the drama.
Also yes if possible stop quoting each other's huge posts it makes the thread incredibly hard to read.
It does somewhat seem like she was a bit dramatic. Again I only know parts, but what I've dug up the media has hardly mentioned. Again, she did not want her name on the gay licenses. She sees that as violating her religious principles and conscience, and it is her right to not want that. If she allowed her deputies to do it, she would still has her name on the licenses as the county clerk, correct? She offered a compromise to Judge Bunning, saying she would be fine if her name was nowhere on the licenses.
The problem is how the government put their "stamp" on marriage. Marriage was a ceremony done between a man and woman who loved each other. This was done for thousands of years. But then governments stepped in and had marriage become something they control, and it was separated from its religious ties that controlled it( it can only be done between a man and woman) and moved it over to their side. They can now alter marriage however they wish.
Shadow People wanting to marry to be allowed the same freedoms and benefits as every one else enjoyed. Adoption fostering insurance health care survivor benefits social security all are affected by marriage by denying LGBT people those rights you create an inequality. The ruling doesn't affect any religious ceremony no one is forced to marry any couples their conscience wouldn't allow. That said Mrs Davis isn't being forced to marry anyone she's been told to abide by the same rules as everyone else.