What are the boundaries of the definition marriage and who gets to set those boundaries?

In that area of Kentucky apparently an adulterous slut who was married four times is the final arbitrator.

That's not really exactly how it works out.

In this particular area of Kentucky, the clerk of the court who is elected by the constituency there has ability to decide to issue or not issue licenses, evidently.  That doesn't really speak to the larger question of who gets to set the boundaries of the definition of marriage -- it appears that SCOTUS has stepped in and decided that along with many other imagined rights not enumerated in the Constitution, the question of who can enter into a marriage contract is a valid problem for them to solve.

A great piece which deals with what Christians should do in such a position:

http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/in-which-i-paint-with-some-bright-yellows.html

The irony is that the Court and the administration is very  inconsistent, only striking down state laws they dislike.  The exact same court that upheld Obamacare stating that it was not their job to overturn a law passed by the legislature acting as the representatives as of the people did exactly the opposite in this case.

DOJ enforcing federal court decision in this case but ignoring sanctuary cities where immigration law is ignored, etc.

The Leviathan is a fickle beast, bro.

I understand that and feel this is a state issue.

My criticism of this is she is about the worst spokesperson who could be arguing the points she is arguing.

Yes. I have to agree with that sentiment.

Oh of course.

Wrong.  You misunderstand.

The only license I should need to carry a weapon, open or concealed, or drive a fully loaded and armed M-1 Abrams tank to work, SHOULD Be the ability to fog a mirror, not being a felon, and not being adjudicated mentally ill and dangerous to others or myself.  

That is why it is called "Constitutional Carry".

The fact that we violate to Constitution in this area is not a justification or excuse to violate the Constitution in another area.

The Constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights, but rather a series of limitations upon the Federal government (originally) that reduced or controlled the manner and extend to which the enumerated rights could be limited or regulated.  

Period.  Full stop.


Obviously, other rights exist, but none of those were placed outside the bounds of government action, Federal in the initial case, and State and local since the 14th.

Marriage had never, ever been in the Federal sand box to play with.  That means it belongs to the States, according to the 9th and 10th.  Since there is no bar to regulating marriage, (indeed, it is a very regulated endeavor, for obvious reasons) in the Constitution, the SC decision is based on - nothing.

just another attention whore.

And yet no one had "discovered a right for even prisoners, (who perhaps could make the best argument for one), to a same-gender "marriage" in the preceding 150 years since the amendment passed that supposedly created it?


R-I-G=H-T .......

Hearing is at 1100 Eastern according to the PACER docket entry.

Such excitement. Much drama.

No worse and no better than most of us.  I am not going to reach over and bayonet someone in the same foxhole as me, fighting the same enemy, based upon her past.

It is never too late to start doing the right thing.

True but she is a HORRIBLE spokesperson on this one IMHO.

Maybe she lives in a sanctuary city, where the law doesn't apply.

Oh, but she's a "born-again Christian" now so she's been forgiven and none of that counts.



 

11:00 Eastern. But they could be on a docket with other stuff.

She's fuuuuuuucked.

To think what the Apostle Saul....I mean Paul would say....

Kinda like Mcdonald vs Chicago, right?

I admire her dedication and her courage in adhering to her beliefs.... Now throw her whore ass in lockup.

So your position is that if we don't allow gay people to formalize monogamous relationships, they'll have sex with fewer people?

Have you really thought this through?

No she doesn't.  

Marriage licenses are "shall issue".  She has no discretion here.

I'm thoroughly convinced NOBODY, on either side, has thought this through.

This thread is pure entertainment gold.

Well - I am not digging through the entire thread. So what exactly is your point/position you want a reasoned response to?

If you are using the Bible to defend your position in any way on this topic, then I have to question your reasoning. But perhaps I am misreading what you said.

People didn't exactly care too much for gay people back then. I know, I know ... those were the days [insert All in the Family themesong].

One could also use the same bad argument for the "newly discovered" "right" to marry someone of a different race.

That's what i thought too. But, looking at it close I don't believe there is a single statute on the books in Kentucky that actually says marriage licenses are shall issue or that a clerk must issue licenses. It seems rather she is empowered to issue licenses at her discretion maybe? There certainly are a number of penalties for her knowingly issuing licenses that are prohibited by statute, but there's no penalty for failing to issue a license when the applicant's are otherwise qualified.

The closest I've found is KRS 402.080:

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.

But that only says that you cannot solemnize the marriage without a license and that the license shall come from the clerk of the county. But it's passive. It doesn't actually say "the clerk of the county shall issue the license" upon filing, meeting the requirements, etc. but rather that any licenses issued "shall be issued from the clerk." It's a restriction on who can issue licenses.

Compare that for instance to the handgun license statute and its wording KRS 237.110 which reads:

"(4) The Department of Kentucky State Police shall issue an original or renewal license
if the applicant: [meets all the other necessary requirements and is not prohibited]"

Now her refusal should clearly be seen essentially as failure to execute the duties of the position she was elected for and she should be removed from office, but that appears to require impeachment which isn't a simple process for those complaining about her actions. So if she's not required by law to issue licenses and isn't issuing any licenses to straight or gay couples, that on its face is non-discriminatory action, even if her intent is discriminatory. She's treating both the same, so it's not clear that would be in violation of the Obergefell ruling. Though, I still wouldn't be surprised to see the federal court smack her down anyways and make her issue licenses or be subject to contempt, its not like the words of the laws mean anything these days.

Pretty much everything a clerk does is "shall-issue." Their job is ministerial in nature. The discretion they have falls under the details of "how" they do it, within the law. Like how they organize the files and flow the work. Even if elected.

The whole "elected" thing comes up because it means they don't have a "boss" to tell them what to do. Except when a federal judge steps in.

I have the same question. Is the license itself "may issue" but only "shall be issued" by the County Clerk?

And she's in custody for contempt as judge didn't think fines would do enough.

That would be how Christianity works.

That is great and all, but that isn't how government works.

 

Based on the past.

If you went by the past, Paul wouldn't have wrote a big hunk of the New testament, would he?

Yes.  My position is that same gender relationships should not have State or Federal approval - certainly not without legislative change..

Great post, Doc.

I am proud of her standing her ground.

The bigger question her critics should be asking is why is a license needed from the government to get married?

Freedom, now get your license so the government can condone your relationship. We should be fighting tooth and nail to get government out, but no, freedom is defined on having to pay for a license.

What a win.

No you can't.  Formally approved interracial marriages have taken place in this country since before it was a country.  I read of one in the 1600's.  Not the same thing at all.

Which is why I said the judge would jail her.

And he has.

lol

Now she is up there with the Apostle Paul

Fantastic

Delicious.  If she s supporting God s authority I hope she prays for her release. If it s God s will he ll cut the walls of the prison in half to free her.