Mike Huckabee Volunteers To Go To Jail For Kim Davis

[mightymen]

In the states that voted no on this issue, same sex marriage is not Federally protected.
Like it or not, agree with it or not, that's the way the law works in this country.

I couldn't agree with you more.

What people don't want to accept is that the supreme court did't rule on same sex marraige directly though the out come was the same. They ruled on equal rights under the Consitution being the ruler to measure. Another thing people can't get past federal government can't legeslate state govenment. State laws can stay enfidently. The justice system is powerless unless the law is broken their hands are tied even if broken how and where and when to use it's powers is another story.

As we can see the court has power over the person which tec is the elected rep that get all directions from state laws not the federal government.

 

[SomeTexan]

I agree Saint.
Remember in Civics class where we learned that Congress makes the laws and the Supreme Court interprets them?

Ok, in 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) into Federal law stating that marriage was between a man and a woman. There was no Federal Law concerning marriage prior to that, so DOMA became THE Federal statute pertaining to marriage.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that PART of DOMA was unconstitutional and some states voted to allow same sex marriage. However, they were in conflict with the remaining articles of DOMA.

The way Federal Laws work is that state law can be MORE restrictive but it cannot be less restrictive than Federal law. So, some states, who voted to recognize same sex marriage were in conflict with Federal Law.

Which is the reason the Supreme Court heard the issue again this year. We all know their decision. But, what we apparently forgot is that since they can't make law, their decision to declare DOMA unconstitutional resulted in there being NO federal law concerning marriage.

Which means, jurisdiction falls to the state. And what that means boys and girls is that Kim Davis IS NOT in violation of ANY law by refusing to issue marriage licenses after the SCOTUS ruling.

In fact, if she had issued a license to a same sex couple, she would have been in violation of the state laws of Kentucky, which had voted no on the issue.

Congress failed to be prepared to handle the situation resulting from SCOTUS striking down DOMA by writing a new Federal Law so we are left with the issue being handled at a state level.

In the states that voted no on this issue, same sex marriage is not Federally protected.
Like it or not, agree with it or not, that's the way the law works in this country.

If limiting marriage to opposite sex couples was unconstitutional for the Feds, it is unconstitutional for the states as well. Simple as that. So that state law is null and void and needs to be removed instead of just overlooked.

 

[mightymen]

Double post

 

[mightymen]

No one here is questioning that the supreme Court ruled and it is the law of the land for now.
The argument is that Kim Davis is not being treated right she asked for responsible accomintions under religious beleif. Her rights are being denied her rights under freedom of religion and there is no reason she should leave her elected office and serve the people of the county. The people can be better served by just granting her rights.

 

[SomeTexan]

No one here is questioning that the supreme Court ruled and it is the law of the land for now.
The argument is that Kim Davis is not being treated right she asked for responsible accomintions under religious beleif. Her rights are being denied her rights under freedom of religion and there is no reason she should leave her elected office and serve the people of the county. The people can be better served by just granting her rights.

No one is asking her to like it, just to just to sign papers stating that the conditions have been met for couples to be married. It is in no way shape or form a violation of her rights. Like I said before, our government requires a separation of Church and state. If she can't set her religious beliefs aside to to her job, she doesn't need that job and shouldn't have run for it in the first place. As you said, it's an elected position, she can't just be sent elsewhere. She can either do the job or quit.

 

[mightymen]

No one is asking her to like it, just to just to sign papers stating that the conditions have been met for couples to be married. It is in no way shape or form a violation of her rights. Like I said before, our government requires a separation of Church and state. If she can't set her religious beliefs aside to to her job, she doesn't need that job and shouldn't have run for it in the first place. As you said, it's an elected position, she can't just be sent elsewhere. She can either do the job or quit.

I can't speak for her though I surely do understand what she said. You would be surprised how many would have no part with same sex marriage because of the relationship they have with their God. If I was her I would use every legal defense of the law to gain my religious rights under the constitution even past that point I would resist. My attentions not to prevent a same sex marriage but to have no part in it.

The separation of state and church is a never ending debate that hasn't been won yet and we are forced by the founders to address single issues at a time for legal clearity. Clearly we can see after all this time the purpose was to have a living document changeable by social communities during times of our history thereby we are a people who govern ourselves not the government who governs the people. In this way the elected officers and appointed work for the people something that most don't understand or willing to admit.

Let me close by repeating people are elected to serve the people of Rowen county elected Jim Davis not any other county or state.

 

[SomeTexan]

I can't speak for her though I surely do understand what she said. You would be surprised how many would have no part with same sex marriage because of the relationship they have with their God. If I was her I would use every legal defense of the law to gain my religious rights under the constitution even past that point I would resist. My attentions not to prevent a same sex marriage but to have no part in it.

The separation of state and church is a never ending debate that hasn't been won yet and we are forced by the founders to address single issues at a time for legal clearity. Clearly we can see after all this time the purpose was to have a living document changeable by social communities during times of our history thereby we are a people who govern ourselves not the government who governs the people. In this way the elected officers and appointed work for the people something that most don't understand or willing to admit.

Let me close by repeating people are elected to serve the people of Rowen county elected Jim Davis not any other county or state.

I don't believe in same sex marriage myself, so I wouldn't put myself in a position where I had to sign marriage licenses. If I were in that position, I would quit. She is refusing to do her job. She hasn't quit so she needs to be fired. She wants to retain the position and just ignore the rights of same sex couples rather than to do the right thing. She want to force her beliefs on others using her position.

It is a debate because some people refuse to do so. Some people want to use a position to force their religious beliefs on others. Simple as that.

She was elected to serve the county and she is refusing to do so. Personally, I think they should have left her in jail. I'm sure her position had an oath of office including "to uphold the constitution" and she is choosing to ignore that and do something deemed unconstitutional. That makes her a criminal and nothing more. She needs to be treated like one...

 

[mightymen]

I don't believe in same sex marriage myself, so I wouldn't put myself in a position where I had to sign marriage licenses. If I were in that position, I would quit. She is refusing to do her job. She hasn't quit so she needs to be fired. She wants to retain the position and just ignore the rights of same sex couples rather than to do the right thing. She want to force her beliefs on others using her position.

It is a debate because some people refuse to do so. Some people want to use a position to force their religious beliefs on others. Simple as that.I

She was elected to serve the county and she is refusing to do so. Personally, I think they should have left her in jail. I'm sure her position had an oath of office including "to uphold the constitution" and she is choosing to ignore that and do something deemed unconstitutional. That makes her a criminal and nothing more. She needs to be treated like one...

On what she is doing is a matter of opinion being right or wrong depending on which street your standing on and looking from.
As of the supreme Court ruling same sex couples have a new right, I am I correct that this new right you believe overpowers her old and obsolete religious right and refuse her any right before a court of law. Not so fast she is fighting for her rights as. has the right to bring her argument before the courts. It's a debate and debulkle because supreme Court ruled one day and same sex couples went the next day to get a license while they were other options open but they refused them. On top of that laws need to be changed and are not. Thisr ruling had major issues implications and needed the time to adjust for the unforseen. Obviously this could have all been avoided with some planning and common sense on all parties concerned now we're left not knowing if the marriage licenses are any good or voided.

She has not refused to serve the county the license have been issued the governor and state lawyer said they were good. The judge was satisfied and released Davis all is well.

Live long and prosper. ​

 

[zapped]

I don't believe in same sex marriage myself, so I wouldn't put myself in a position where I had to sign marriage licenses. If I were in that position, I would quit. She is refusing to do her job. She hasn't quit so she needs to be fired. She wants to retain the position and just ignore the rights of same sex couples rather than to do the right thing. She want to force her beliefs on others using her position.

It is a debate because some people refuse to do so. Some people want to use a position to force their religious beliefs on others. Simple as that.

She was elected to serve the county and she is refusing to do so. Personally, I think they should have left her in jail. I'm sure her position had an oath of office including "to uphold the constitution" and she is choosing to ignore that and do something deemed unconstitutional. That makes her a criminal and nothing more. She needs to be treated like one...

Actually, if you look at my post above, Kim Davis is not refusing to do her job. She's refusing to break state law.It might be under religious grounds but the fact remains.

As an elected official she took an oath to uphold the laws of her state....and her state voted no on that particular issue.


The Supreme Court does NOT make laws. Thats not its function.

 

[SomeTexan]

On what she is doing is a matter of opion being right or wrong depending on which street your standing on and looking from.
As of the supreme Court ruling same sex couples have a new right, I am I correct that this new right you believe overpowers her old and obsolete religious right and refuse her any right before a court of law. Not so fast she is fighting for her rights as. has the right to bring her argument before the courts. It's a debate and debulkle because supreme Court ruled one day and same sex couples went the next day to get a license while they were other options open but they refused them. On top of that laws need to be changed and are not. Thisr ruling had major issues implications and needed the time to adjust for the unforseen. Obviously this could have all been avoided with some planning and common sense on all parties concerned now we're left not knowing if the marriage licenses are any good or voided.

It isn't a "new law", it is just that an old law was found to be a violation of constitutional rights.

Her rights aren't being violated. There is nothing that says that she has to like or approve of what they are doing in any way. She just has to sign a piece of paper as an official recognizing that these couples are married in the eyes of the law. Nothing about that means that she approves of what they are doing. No one is forcing her to get married to another woman. She can think it is wrong and that they will burn for all eternity. No one is denying her that right. But she is denying the rights of others. As I see it, she is a lowlife looking for some publicity and a stack of cash. She is misinterpreting her job and using her religion as a crutch. People like her make all Christians look bad.

 

[mightymen]

Actually, if you look at my post above, Kim Davis is not refusing to do her job. She's refusing to break state law.It might be under religious grounds but the fact remains.

As an elected official she took an oath to uphold the laws of her state....and her state voted no on that particular issue.

The Supreme Court does NOT make laws. Thats not its function.

Davis hasn't broken one state law, she was held on contempt which is not a crime even if it was we have do process here and right to a trail no open and shut case going on here.

 

[SomeTexan]

Actually, if you look at my post above, Kim Davis is not refusing to do her job. She's refusing to break state law.It might be under religious grounds but the fact remains.

As an elected official she took an oath to uphold the laws of her state....and her state voted no on that particular issue.

The Supreme Court does NOT make laws. Thats not its function.

No, I read your post. It is you that have it wrong. The Supreme Court decided that the old law was unconstitutional and thus null and void. Even on the state level or county level it is unconstitutional.

You are correct, the Supreme Court doesn't make laws, but they can and do strike down unconstitutional ones. In this case they did just that.

 

[mightymen]

It isn't a "new law", it is just that an old law was found to be a violation of constitutional rights

Her rights aren't being violated. There is nothing that says that she has to like or approve of what they are doing in any way. She just has to sign a piece of paper as an official recognizing that these couples are married in the eyes of the law. Nothing about that means that she approves of what they are doing. No one is forcing her to get married to another woman. She can think it is wrong and that they will burn for all eternity. No one is denying her that right. But she is denying the rights of others. As I see it, she is a lowlife looking for some publicity and a stack of cash. She is misinterpreting her job and using her religion as a crutch. People like her make all Christians look bad.

This is a matter of opinion mine say's her rights have been trampled on.

As far as the new ruling strange it stood from 1776 until 2015. Guess justice is blind.

 

[SomeTexan]

Davis hasn't broken one state law, she was held on contempt which is not a crime even if it was we have do process here and right to a trail no open and shut case going on here.

Judges do that quite often though. They can and will hold people in contempt of court for stupid reasons. And there isn't anything you can do about it. I was held in contempt in a case that I ended up winning. The courts still expect me to pay the fine. I just pointed out that the judge was doing something that was illegal for him to do and the jury took note. He was irate and told me that I was in contempt and owe $10,000 for it. I won, but he still thinks he has the right to steal ten grand from me. It's a flaw in our legal system.

 

[SomeTexan]

This is a matter of opinion mine say's her rights have been trampled on.

As far as the new ruling strange it stood from 1776 until 2015. Guess justice is blind.

How have her rights been trampled? Where has anyone forced her to approve of homosexuality?

In 1776 all men were created equal, except for those that were slaves. And women. And anyone else that the bigwigs didn't like. Lady justice isn't blind, she is just for sale to the highest bidder. Or the strongest group with the most connections.

 

[mightymen]

How have her rights been trampled? Where has anyone forced her to approve of homosexuality?

In 1776 all men were created equal, except for those that were slaves. And women. And anyone else that the bigwigs didn't like. Lady justice isn't blind, she is just for sale to the highest bidder. Or the strongest group with the most connections.

Religious rights under the constitution are not questionable she said it was against her religion and belief, that's all the constitution requires is the clam being made. It doesn't have to be explained or proven and I doubt all understand or all believe the same. Yes her rights are being trampled.

The constitution abolished slavery or rather it was written as to do so.

There is a difference of allowing and no need to approve anyone's choice being it same sex marriage or anything else.

Anyway this is the Christian area and were way off topic.

 

[Saintscruiser]

"No one is asking her to like it, just to just to sign papers stating that the conditions have been met for couples to be married."

You keep missing the first point made. Kentucky law states that marriage licenses are to be given only to a man and a woman. Period. This has been stated throughout this thread numerous times. Have you read the entire thread? The Kentucky law will either 1) have to be changed; 2) or left alone and quit harassing Kim Davis. She is a Christian and she has a right, per the Bill of Rights, to act like she is. However, a small percentage of people in the United States are pushing and pressuring State Law to rescind their laws. So first, look at and read the law. Second, she has the right to uphold the law because the law was passed by the Kentucky State House and Senate, most assuredly by mainly Christians. Now, years ago, I mean in the 1920's, it was against the law to be a homosexual or lesbian. Some countries not only jailed them, but it was also punishable by death. The dictator of Iran said, "We have no homosexuals in our country." If caught, they are put to death....even today. So yes, things have become more lax, but the law is the law! I don't know how it can be stated plainer.

 

[SomeTexan]

Religious rights under the constitution are not questionable she said it was against her religion and belief, that's all the constitution requires is the clam being made. It doesn't have to be explained or proven and I doubt all understand or all believe the same. Yes her rights are being trampled.

The constitution abolished savery or rather it was written as to do so.

They have questioned the religious beliefs of many over the years. How many Christians are forced to work on Christmas or the Sabboth? Courts have told them to do it or find another job. Why should she be any different? If she didn't want to do her job, she should find another. Nothing in her job forced her to violate her religious beliefs, she just chose to make a scene because she didn't like it and didn't want to quit.

There was more than one slave owner that signed the Constitution. The Emancipation Proclimation freed them quite some time later.

 

[zapped]

"No one is asking her to like it, just to just to sign papers stating that the conditions have been met for couples to be married."

You keep missing the first point made. Kentucky law states that marriage licenses are to be given only to a man and a woman. Period. This has been stated throughout this thread numerous times. Have you read the entire thread? The Kentucky law will either 1) have to be changed; 2) or left alone and quit harassing Kim Davis. She is a Christian and she has a right, per the Bill of Rights, to act like she is. However, a small percentage of people in the United States are pushing and pressuring State Law to rescind their laws. So first, look at and read the law. Second, she has the right to uphold the law because the law was passed by the Kentucky State House and Senate, most assuredly by mainly Christians. Now, years ago, I mean in the 1920's, it was against the law to be a homosexual or lesbian. Some countries not only jailed them, but it was also punishable by death. The dictator of Iran said, "We have no homosexuals in our country." If caught, they are put to death....even today. So yes, things have become more lax, but the law is the law! I don't know how it can be stated plainer.

Correct, in the complete absence of Federal law, state law is sovereign.

Those who are angry about this should work to change laws at a local level, instead of trying to force 50 years of change on everyone in just a few short years.

Thats not how its supposed to work.

 

[SomeTexan]

"No one is asking her to like it, just to just to sign papers stating that the conditions have been met for couples to be married."

You keep missing the first point made. Kentucky law states that marriage licenses are to be given only to a man and a woman. Period. This has been stated throughout this thread numerous times. Have you read the entire thread? The Kentucky law will either 1) have to be changed; 2) or left alone and quit harassing Kim Davis. She is a Christian and she has a right, per the Bill of Rights, to act like she is. However, a small percentage of people in the United States are pushing and pressuring State Law to rescind their laws. So first, look at and read the law. Second, she has the right to uphold the law because the law was passed by the Kentucky State House and Senate, most assuredly by mainly Christians. Now, years ago, I mean in the 1920's, it was against the law to be a homosexual or lesbian. Some countries not only jailed them, but it was also punishable by death. The dictator of Iran said, "We have no homosexuals in our country." If caught, they are put to death....even today. So yes, things have become more lax, but the law is the law! I don't know how it can be stated plainer.

That law was found to be unconstitutional on all levels. Thus it is no longer a valid law. Simple as that. Now, rather than being a law, it is a crime to keep it on the books. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional. The end. No part of our government can hold it as law.