how can this be

[JadeRaven]

They could get a marriage license from any clerk of court.
As far as I know only one of the couples even lived in Rowan County.


They came to her because they knew she was not issuing license to anyone.
Even though most of them didn't even live in Rowan County or even in Kentucky.

Typically if you want to be married in a particular jurisdiction, you have to get a license from that jurisdiction.

Jefferson Parish does not issue marriage licenses for weddings that occur in Orleans Parish.

I cannot speak as to Kentucky law but I would suspect it is the same.

 

[whitsend]

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/chapter.aspx?id=39205

402.080 Marriage license required
--
Who may issue.
No marriage shall be solemnized without a license therefor. The license shall be issued by
the clerk of the county in which the female resides at the time, unless the female is
eighteen (18) years of age or over or a widow, and the license is issued on her
application
in person or by writing signed by her, in which case it may be issued by any county clerk.

 

[whitsend]

Actually by Kentucky law, the two guys who wanted to get a license can't. The law requires the female to get the license.

Even another way Kim Davis was just following the law.

The legislature will have to fix many issues with the Kentucky marriage laws.

 

[whitsend]

Another option for getting a license under Kentucky law.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36490

402.240 County judge/executive to issue license in absence of clerk.
In the absence of the county clerk, or during a vacancy in the office, the county
judge/executive may issue the license and, in so doing, he shall perform the duties and
incur all the responsibilities of the clerk. The county judge/executive shall return a
memorandum thereof to the clerk, and the memorandum shall be recorded as if the
license had been issued by the clerk.

 

[whitsend]

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36498

402.990 Penalties.
(1)
Any party to a marriage prohibited by KRS 402.010 shall be guilty of a Class B
misdemeanor. If the parties continue after conviction to cohabit as man and wife,
either or both of them shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(2)
Any person who aids or abets the marriage of any person who has been adjudged
mentally disabled, or attempts to marry, or aids or abets any attempted marriage
with any such person shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
(3)
Any authorized person who knowingly solemnizes a marriage prohibited by this
chapter shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(4)
Any unauthorized person who solemnizes a marriage under pretense of having
authority, and any person who falsely personates the father, mother, or guardian of
an applicant in obtaining a license shall be guilty of a Class D felony.
(5)
Any person who falsely and fraudulently represents or personates another, and in
such assumed character marries that person, shall be guilty of a Class D felony.
Indictment under this subsection shall
be found only upon complaint of the injured
party and within two (2) years after the commission of the offense.
(6)
Any clerk who knowingly issues a marriage license to any persons prohibited by
this chapter from marrying shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and removed
from office by the judgment of the court in which he is convicted.
(7)
Any clerk who knowingly issues a marriage license in violation of his duty under
this chapter shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(8)
If any deputy clerk or any
person other than a county clerk knowingly issues a
marriage license in violation of this chapter, but not for a prohibited marriage, he
shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, and if he knowingly issues a license for a
marriage prohibited by this chapter, he shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(9)
Any person who violates any of the provisions of KRS 402.090 shall be guilty of a
violation.
(10)
Any county clerk who violates any of the provisions of KRS 402.110 or 402.230
shall be guilty of a violation.
(11)
Any person failing to make the return required of him by KRS 402.220 shall be
guilty of a violation.

 

[Cochise]

Just ask yourself one thing, Mr Whit. If she had left her personal feelings and her religious beliefs out of it and made her prohibition and subsequent court case soely about what the law you just posted says, would we be having this conversation?

 

[AustinBR]

One of the benefits of being American, we can stand up, for our, beliefs, and given enough support, make a change...
We are supposed to be able to do so non violently, and without fear of persecution.
All of us must acknowledge, non of the parties stood down. She could have resigned, those petitioning a license, could have obtained one in another county, and the judge could have called legislation for impeachment. From what I've been reading, the governor currently isn't touching this.

Austin, I don't care who gets married to whom, beating a dead horse here, but you can't for your lifestyle / opinions on people. That's bigotry or reverse bigotry when dealing with racism and sexuality.

Any body of any sex, race, culture or color, can have a medical power of attorney, there no need for a marriage to joint finance, a car, home or other large purchases, and there are ways to claim adults on taxes, that you were their primary means of support. Throughout the history of God / abraham based religion, marriage was a union of male and female before god. Sometimes more than one female ( god allowed). The European church was the first to make this union officially documented ad recognized by the ruling authorities ( probably so they could tax it, and charge to hold a wedding)
During this time priest were even married. Homosexual unions were never recognized. Homosexuals have been fighting to have their union accepted for a long time. God / Abraham based religion said no. Fast forward to current times, our government decides to recognize a homosexual union,and gave the public false claims as to why. Homosexual have had the same rights as everyone else for awhile now. Same health care plans, you can't fire a someone because their gay, you cannot deny gay people education in public schools, hell same sex adoptions are common thing now.
The dilemma for some, is that equal rights arent, enough, they want forced acceptance. Thats not going to happen, you cannot force everybody to accept everyone. Especially if their religious belief are against your lifestyle. Our laws are supposed to give religious citizens this freedom.

To me, this isn't about gay, it's about a citizen (regardless of employer) who says, I won't do this, because it's against my beliefs, and a judge, that couldnt impeach her, so he used the law, and had her arrested.

I ask all of you, if the day comes, where firearms are banned, where a law is created, to remove our 2nd Amend. How will you stand?

I want to address the two points that I have bolded:
1) No one is forcing anyone to accept gay marriage. The judge is forcing her to uphold the law that all people shall be treated equally under. She is being forced to not force her religious views onto other people. In reality, her religious beliefs do not matter under the eyes of the law. If she worked for a church and did not want to help gay couples marry under the church, she would be fine and dandy. The fact is that she is trying to prevent gay couples from marrying under the law, which allows it.

2) Banning firearms = taking away a right
Allowing ALL people to be treated equally under a law without regard to their religious or sexual preferences = giving a right.

Big difference.

Well, I didn't think this law should pass but I also think she should be in jail. It certainly is not the deciding factor for me. Whether I support the law or not is inconsequential to her being arrested for disobeying a court order. I do not see a state employee failing to comply with the law as religious persecution, but I would see a private institution being forced to acknowledge the union as such.

I don't agree with the law, I also don't agree that pot should be illegal, but we all don't get what we want and we carry on. I don't slight homosexuals in any way, I just feel that marriage should be a special thing between a man and a woman that is conducive to the proliferation of the species. I have the right to feel that way and she had the right to religiously disagree with gay marriage, but she does not have the right to fail to uphold public law when she is a public official. If she was a judge denying the death penalty in the case of a child serial killer based on the judges religious beliefs, many here would want her head.

Bingo.

I just see a difference between a religious union and a legal union.

 

[Harrisracing]

I want to address the two points that I have bolded:
1) No one is forcing anyone to accept gay marriage. The judge is forcing her to uphold the law that all people shall be treated equally under. She is being forced to not force her religious views onto other people. In reality, her religious beliefs do not matter under the eyes of the law. If she worked for a church and did not want to help gay couples marry under the church, she would be fine and dandy. The fact is that she is trying to prevent gay couples from marrying under the law, which allows it.

2) Banning firearms = taking away a right
Allowing ALL people to be treated equally under a law without regard to their religious or sexual preferences = giving a right.

Big difference.


Bingo.

I just see a difference between a religious union and a legal union.

My response to your number 1) - Forcing this woman to put aside her constitutional right to religious freedom to uphold a new law is the other way to look at this. If you can just angle your head that way you will see that the government changed a law (or ruled an old one unconstitutional) that then made this woman's job description now violate her constitutional right to religious freedom. Again...The government has wronged both this woman and the gay couple if you can possibly imagine that. They have literally created a paradox by honoring parts of the constitution on one side and punishing parts of the constitution on the other side (if you think marriage is a constitutional right).

We should use this opportunity to take the magazine and firearm ownership restrictions OUT of the restrictive states. Those independent states are keeping people from their 2nd amendment rights...AND I think people in those states should take a stand and start purchasing and possessing large cap magazines because the state laws will be found in violation of their 2nd amendment rights. They may get thrown in jail eventually, but I'm sure the supreme court can read the words "shall not be infringed upon" pretty clearly which should vindicate them. So is it "right" to break a state law to honor the constitution?

 

[AustinBR]

The way I see it us they aren't forcing her to put her religious freedom aside. They aren't forcing her to do anything that has to do with religion. They are forcing her to do her job that deals with economic equality. The civil unions that she issues are not the same as a spiritual union through a church. Once again, her job had nothing to do with religion. She is not a priest. She does not work at a church. She choose to bring religion into her job and then to violate a direct court order. She caused her problems herself. And her job description was never changed. Her job was to issue legal civil unions. Just because she doesn't agree with the amended definition of legal doesn't mean she can choose to not do her job fully. If she didn't like it, she could quit.

--Sent From My Galaxy S6

 

[Harrisracing]

The way I see it us they aren't forcing her to put her religious freedom aside. They aren't forcing her to do anything that has to do with religion. They are forcing her to do her job that deals with economic equality. The civil unions that she issues are not the same as a spiritual union through a church. Once again, her job had nothing to do with religion. She is not a priest. She does not work at a church. She choose to bring religion into her job and then to violate a direct court order. She caused her problems herself. And her job description was never changed. Her job was to issue legal civil unions. Just because she doesn't agree with the amended definition of legal doesn't mean she can choose to not do her job fully. If she didn't like it, she could quit.

--Sent From My Galaxy S6

Well I would say her signature on a license that would directly result in "men lying with men" (the typical consummation of marriage) would be in direct violation of her religious practice - something that she hadn't been required to do previously.

Here is another hypothetical example for your consideration:
Let's say the law changed and now the clerk of court would be required to sign the execution orders for those on death row when filing the court paperwork. Assume she has an ongoing religious belief to uphold the commandment of "thou shalt not murder" and would consider her signature on the paperwork as her condoning murder. Does she still have a case? In parallel to your statements above - She wouldn't be the one executing the prisoners, nor was she the one who decided execution was a lawful sentence, she is only going to be confirming the information on the paperwork...I can see her taking a very similar stance in that case as well and she is in an almost exact place as this hypothetical scenario now.

 

[whitsend]

Just ask yourself one thing, Mr Whit. If she had left her personal feelings and her religious beliefs out of it and made her prohibition and subsequent court case soely about what the law you just posted says, would we be having this conversation?

Yes.

The ACLU sought out homosexuals to go to the three clerks of court in Kentucky that were not issuing license so that they could force them to issue a marriage license.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[AustinBR]

Well I would say her signature on a license that would directly result in "men lying with men" (the typical consummation of marriage) would be in direct violation of her religious practice - something that she hadn't been required to do previously.

Here is another hypothetical example for your consideration:
Let's say the law changed and now the clerk of court would be required to sign the execution orders for those on death row when filing the court paperwork. Assume she has an ongoing religious belief to uphold the commandment of "thou shalt not murder" and would consider her signature on the paperwork as her condoning murder. Does she still have a case? In parallel to your statements above - She wouldn't be the one executing the prisoners, nor was she the one who decided execution was a lawful sentence, she is only going to be confirming the information on the paperwork...I can see her taking a very similar stance in that case as well and she is in an almost exact place as this hypothetical scenario now.

No, the men were likely already lying with men. She is just confirming everything in the system so they can get the same legal benefits as a woman lying with a man who so chooses to be in a civil union. The only difference is the gender. Other than that it's the exact same job.

As for the execution part: if she refuses to do her job, or does not like an aspect of her job, she needs to quit. It doesn't matter what it entails - she can always find another job. If the person that actually does the executions has a "come to Jesus moment" and decides he can no longer do it because of his religion, he needs to quit. It doesn't matter who did the changing - him or the law; the fact that he does not want to do his job anymore means he needs to quit or ask to be moved to a different department doing something else.

--Sent From My Galaxy S6

 

[Harrisracing]

Forcing someone to find another job or to quit because their religious practices don't allow them to do a job any longer is unconstitutional. I previously summarized current Louisiana employment law that states this already. If the work HOURS change and no longer allow you to perform your documented religious practices then the employer must make accommodations. There is not an option for the employer to fire the employee and the responsibility does not fall on the employee to quit.

By your logic this employee should quit this job if they want to continue to practice their religion despite a change in work requirements...but currently the law supports the second amendment instead of the employer.

Back to my execution example. I say a moral stance to government changes (religious or not) is extremely important because blind obedience of citizens to the government laws is extremely dangerous - even if they were able to fire you and get someone else that would do their duty.

In a REAL example...Adolph Hitler wouldn't have made it as far if the guys running the ghetto death squads and concentration camps (doing their "government mandated duty") hadn't used your logic. Perhaps they could have stopped and said..."No, I'll defend my country but I won't kill innocent women, children, and men". Perhaps that meant death (a noble death might I add). This is essentially their directive as given from their government and they simply followed them. I wonder if these people were hanged at the time or if they just lived a life in regret?

 

[Whitebread]

A few points

1: This woman was jailed and Hillary is still running for president.

2: Before the ruling oligarchy redefined marriage at least 38 states had some form of a ban on gay marriage. Gay marriage bans almost always win at the polls. So once again the Supreme taco I mean court has ruled in direct opposition to the will of the people.

3: It was an unconstitutional ruling base on the 10th ammendment, and they ruled in direct opposition to many states ratified constitions.

4: People discuss how awful the so called hate is from christians but in states where "hate crime" legislation exists, this new "law of the land" will be used to attack christian bakers, florists, photographers, ministers and pretty much anyone foolish enough to stand up for what God says and refuse service for gay weddings. Don't believe me? It was already begining in states that gay marraige was legal.

5: Why is this an issue anyways? Less that 2% of the population in this country are gay. What next? Is the supreme borrito going to listen to why less than 2% of the population has a right to practice shaira law? I mean after all they are people too you know.

6: Oh and ask a muslim how they feel about the homos.

 

[sliguns]

5: Why is this an issue anyways?

There's a lot to be considered here (as you've already pointed out), but it seems like one answer to your #5 is - This is an issue mainly b/c the government is involved. I know some people will roll their eyes at that statement, but IF gov't was not involved, then consensual and contractual relationships would be handled through the church (marriage) or some other 3rd party (attorney) that is not connected to the public (for instance voting connects the will of the majority to the minority). If enough people (or States - some States are discussing this right now) would decide to remove gov't from the equation of marriage and leave churches to "marry" whomever they choose (this does trust that gov't would not interfere with the Right of churches to marry whomever they want), then this entire debate and controversy of gay marriage would cease to exist over night....imho

 

[Harrisracing]

Agree with this ^. As some stated previously if the definition of marriage as according to the government simply grants legal rights and other assessments of community property, etc...where does the gov't really stand in telling anyone anything about it.

I mean the tough part of sorting out a divorce is in child custody anyway...not in community property...and same-sex couples shouldn't have the issue of biological children??

I almost wrote last night that the whole "marriage license" issue could go out the window.

 

[Whitebread]

There's a lot to be considered here (as you've already pointed out), but it seems like one answer to your #5 is - This is an issue mainly b/c the government is involved. I know some people will roll their eyes at that statement, but IF gov't was not involved, then consensual and contractual relationships would be handled through the church (marriage) or some other 3rd party (attorney) that is not connected to the public (for instance voting connects the will of the majority to the minority). If enough people (or States - some States are discussing this right now) would decide to remove gov't from the equation of marriage and leave churches to "marry" whomever they choose (this does trust that gov't would not interfere with the Right of churches to marry whomever they want), then this entire debate and controversy of gay marriage would cease to exist over night....imho

I see your point. Its really spot on but gays have never been banned from perticipating in marraige as traditionally defined we simply refused to redefine marriage to include same sex couples. Simply put a gay male has always been permitted to marry a woman and vice versus.
But the bigger point is still missed 2% of americans are gay. And many dont care to ever marry anyways.

 

[sliguns]

I see your point. Its really spot on but gays have never been banned from perticipating in marraige as traditionally defined we simply refused to redefine marriage to include same sex couples.

Agreed, and without the gov't involvement in these relationships, Christians (such as myself) would still be able to keep the traditional definition of marriage and apply this definition in their churches and personal lives. If a gay couple finds a church in Los Angeles, Seattle, NYC that will agree to "marry" them, then I'm fine with that since it presumably involves consensual adults at all levels and doesn't force their beliefs on myself or my church.

Simply put a gay male has always been permitted to marry a woman and vice versus.

Understood and I think on a Liberty-level (imho), it's important that we all have the Liberty to enter into consensual contracts with whomever we desire. If two male individuals agree to come together in a relationship contract, split all their assets (insert joke here), make an oath to each other, they should be, under the flag of Liberty for all, do such a thing. However, if no one (church, attorney, whatever) wants to partake in something like that, they should have the Liberty to refuse service and not have the heavy hand of gov't to deal with.

But the bigger point is still missed 2% of americans are gay. And many dont care to ever marry anyways.

Understood and I think IF "marriage" was a Constitutional Right (as say bearing arms is), then the percentage of people wouldn't really come into play since a Right is a Right on the individual level.

 

[Whitebread]

Agreed, and without the gov't involvement in these relationships, Christians (such as myself) would still be able to keep the traditional definition of marriage and apply this definition in their churches and personal lives. If a gay couple finds a church in Los Angeles, Seattle, NYC that will agree to "marry" them, then I'm fine with that since it presumably involves consensual adults at all levels and doesn't force their beliefs on myself or my church.



Understood and I think on a Liberty-level (imho), it's important that we all have the Liberty to enter into consensual contracts with whomever we desire. If two male individuals agree to come together in a relationship contract, split all their assets (insert joke here), make an oath to each other, they should be, under the flag of Liberty for all, do such a thing. However, if no one (church, attorney, whatever) wants to partake in something like that, they should have the Liberty to refuse service and not have the heavy hand of gov't to deal with.



Understood and I think IF "marriage" was a Constitutional Right (as say bearing arms is), then the percentage of people wouldn't really come into play since a Right is a Right on the individual level.

Look its non of any of our business what people do in their bed room. I'm not in the legislate morals crowd, but we are a nation that is founded in the fact that individual rights come from God. A Judio/Christian God. And the big guy says marriage is a man and a woman. Now the biggest issue of gay marriage is supposed to be the rights associated with property, visitation, custody, ect. All of those things can be achieved by righting contractual agreements, living wills, last testiments, and listing benificiaries. Short of the population being forced to accept blasphany there is no benefit to "Same Sex Marraige" being law.

 

[US Infidel]

So what some of Yall are saying is "

".
Oh wait, WHAT?! Doesn't God love everyone? Wouldn't he want everyone to be happy even if it differs from your beliefs??