Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
She involved them by refusing to obey federal law and failing to apply to state law for an available remedy.

Again, what federal law did she break? You won't find one.

Is that so?

I would bet Frazz meant she did not break a federal law by refusing to issue marriage licenses.

And I think he is correct.

That seems pretty dubious from the quoted text that prefaced his post...

So, what Federal law did she break?

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
She involved them by refusing to obey federal law and failing to apply to state law for an available remedy.

Again, what federal law did she break? You won't find one.

Is that so?

Thats bootstrapping. The court only has a power for an action before it. Judge's can't just randomly start ordering people about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
That seems pretty dubious from the quoted text that prefaced his post...

That is correct. No actual law has been violated, except of course for fashion law. Oh man has that been violated.

She violated state law by refusing to issue the licenses as directed by Kentucky law. She subsequently violated federal law when she disobeyed a direct order by a federal judge to follow state law, for which she was put in jail.

Edit: I'm not sure if we every posted the actual ruling that started this:

https://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/2015/081215_-_Order_-_Granting_PI.pdf

Got it, so it is now the job of Federal judges to jail folks for not obeying state laws.

Which State law did she violate? Has the KY Legislature legalized gay marriage yet?

Seems interesting that with all this law breaking no one has charged her...

 d-usa wrote:
She violated state law by refusing to issue the licenses as directed by Kentucky law. She subsequently violated federal law when she disobeyed a direct order by a federal judge to follow state law, for which she was put in jail.

Edit: I'm not sure if we every posted the actual ruling that started this:

https://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/2015/081215_-_Order_-_Granting_PI.pdf

incorrect. She was following Kentucky law. Kentucky law doesn't provide for same sex marriage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
Got it, so it is now the job of Federal judges to jail folks for not obeying state laws.

Which State law did she violate? Has the KY Legislature legalized gay marriage yet?

Seems interesting that with all this law breaking no one has charged her...

In this instance, she is violating court orders which were derived from a suit. The court is following the precedent set by SCOTUS that there is a fundamental right found in the Amendments.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
She violated state law by refusing to issue the licenses as directed by Kentucky law. She subsequently violated federal law when she disobeyed a direct order by a federal judge to follow state law, for which she was put in jail.

Edit: I'm not sure if we every posted the actual ruling that started this:

https://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/2015/081215_-_Order_-_Granting_PI.pdf

incorrect. She was following Kentucky law. Kentucky law doesn't provide for same sex marriage.

No, Kentucky law provides for marriage. And Kentucky law directs that county clerks certify that applicants that apply for a marriage license meet the legal requirements for marriage and issue a license to all applicants that meet those requirements. By refusing to issue marriage licenses, to one or to all, she broke the law that specifies the functions of a county clerk in Kentucky.


Edit: To quote:

Under Kentucky law, county clerks are also responsible for issuing marriage
licenses.1 See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.080. The process is quite simple. The couple
must first go to the county clerk’s office and provide their biographical information to one
of the clerks. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.100. The clerk then enters the information into
a computer-generated form, prints it and signs it. Id. This form signifies that the couple is
licensed, or legally qualified, to marry.2 Id. At the appropriate time, the couple presents
this form to their officiant, who must certify that he or she performed a valid marriage
ceremony. Id. The couple then has thirty days to return the form to the clerk’s office for
recording. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.220, 402.230. The State will not recognize
marriages entered into without a valid license therefor. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.080

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
Got it, so it is now the job of Federal judges to jail folks for not obeying state laws.

Which State law did she violate? Has the KY Legislature legalized gay marriage yet?

Seems interesting that with all this law breaking no one has charged her...

The answer to all your questions is in the link to the actual ruling.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't her main objection having her name on these same-sex certificates? Has she pursued any remedies at a State level yet?


Legalities aside:

 Psienesis wrote:
I am especially amused by the crowd of ignorant savages gathering around the house of the judge to find him "in contempt of God's court" (their words) when, in fact, Jesus told them to obey the law of the land.

I'm certain there is a famous story involving Daniel and a Den of Lions for doing exactly the opposite of that.

Oh what the hell...

 CptJake wrote:
Got it, so it is now the job of Federal judges to jail folks for not obeying state laws.

No Federal judges can jail people for not obeying federal court orders.

Which State law did she violate?

The law that directs county clerks to verify that applicants meet the legal requirements for marriage and to certify that the legal requirements are met on the license she is required by law to issue.

Has the KY Legislature legalized gay marriage yet?

Remember that time you had, most likely, at least one rainbow colored picture show up on your Facebook feed? That's when KY, together with every other state in the Union, had gay marriage legalized by virtue of the SCOTUS.

Seems interesting that with all this law breaking no one has charged her...

She was sued for breaking the law, she was ordered by a court to stop breaking the law, she was jailed because she ignored the order to stop breaking the law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't her main objection having her name on these same-sex certificates? Has she pursued any remedies at a State level yet?

She told the judge in her county "I can't do this, you do it since it's your job when I'm not in office" and the judge basically replied "wtf, you are totally in office, I'm not doing your job".
She also told the Governor to change the wording on the text or to exempt her.

The Governor, and the federal judge, are pretty much on record with the opinion that including her name, as the holder of the office of County Clerk, does not violate her 1st Amendment rights because the job of the County Clerk is simply to certify that the applicants meet the legal requirements to marry not that she approves of the marriage. She can think that they are all going to hell if she so wishes, but signing the license simply states "they meet the requirement of the law to marry" and not "I approve of this marriage".

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
She violated state law by refusing to issue the licenses as directed by Kentucky law. She subsequently violated federal law when she disobeyed a direct order by a federal judge to follow state law, for which she was put in jail.

Edit: I'm not sure if we every posted the actual ruling that started this:

https://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/2015/081215_-_Order_-_Granting_PI.pdf

incorrect. She was following Kentucky law. Kentucky law doesn't provide for same sex marriage.

No, Kentucky law provides for marriage. And Kentucky law directs that county clerks certify that applicants that apply for a marriage license meet the legal requirements for marriage and issue a license to all applicants that meet those requirements. By refusing to issue marriage licenses, to one or to all, she broke the law that specifies the functions of a county clerk in Kentucky.


Edit: To quote:

Under Kentucky law, county clerks are also responsible for issuing marriage
licenses.1 See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.080. The process is quite simple. The couple
must first go to the county clerk’s office and provide their biographical information to one
of the clerks. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.100. The clerk then enters the information into
a computer-generated form, prints it and signs it. Id. This form signifies that the couple is
licensed, or legally qualified, to marry.2 Id. At the appropriate time, the couple presents
this form to their officiant, who must certify that he or she performed a valid marriage
ceremony. Id. The couple then has thirty days to return the form to the clerk’s office for
recording. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 402.220, 402.230. The State will not recognize
marriages entered into without a valid license therefor. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 402.080

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
Got it, so it is now the job of Federal judges to jail folks for not obeying state laws.

Which State law did she violate? Has the KY Legislature legalized gay marriage yet?

Seems interesting that with all this law breaking no one has charged her...

The answer to all your questions is in the link to the actual ruling.

Kentucky law also defines what marriage is. There is no gay marriage in Kentucky. She wasn't violating a law. She was violating a court order based on SCOTUS which found a new right under the Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Why are you fighting this? Many, many things have been decided not as a violation of law, but as a violation of a right under the Constitution (Miranda ring a bell?). Indeed Amendments are far more powerful than any mere law.

 Frazzled wrote:

Kentucky law also defines what marriage is. There is no gay marriage in Kentucky. She wasn't violating a law. She was violating a court order based on SCOTUS which found a new right under the Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Why are you fighting this? Many, many things have been decided not as a violation of law, but as a violation of a right under the Constitution (Miranda ring a bell?). Indeed Amendments are far more powerful than any mere law.

I know that you will never admit that you are wrong. But feel free to demonstrate where she has been issuing licenses as directed by Kentucky law.

 d-usa wrote:

 Humble Guardsman wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't her main objection having her name on these same-sex certificates? Has she pursued any remedies at a State level yet?

She told the judge in her county "I can't do this, you do it since it's your job when I'm not in office" and the judge basically replied "wtf, you are totally in office, I'm not doing your job".
She also told the Governor to change the wording on the text or to exempt her.

The Governor, and the federal judge, are pretty much on record with the opinion that including her name, as the holder of the office of County Clerk, does not violate her 1st Amendment rights because the job of the County Clerk is simply to certify that the applicants meet the legal requirements to marry not that she approves of the marriage. She can think that they are all going to hell if she so wishes, but signing the license simply states "they meet the requirement of the law to marry" and not "I approve of this marriage".

That seems fairly straightforward.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Kentucky law also defines what marriage is. There is no gay marriage in Kentucky. She wasn't violating a law. She was violating a court order based on SCOTUS which found a new right under the Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Why are you fighting this? Many, many things have been decided not as a violation of law, but as a violation of a right under the Constitution (Miranda ring a bell?). Indeed Amendments are far more powerful than any mere law.

I know that you will never admit that you are wrong. But feel free to demonstrate where she has been issuing licenses as directed by Kentucky law.

No licenses to issue as there was no valid marriage under Kentucky law.

She was refusing to sign marriage certificates. The state law says it's her job to sign them.

Where is the argument?

 Frazzled wrote:
No licenses to issue as there was no valid marriage under Kentucky law.

At some point one has to consider the possibility the discussion has degenerated into pigeon chess, and at that point it's foolhardy to be upset with the pigeon.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Kentucky law also defines what marriage is. There is no gay marriage in Kentucky. She wasn't violating a law. She was violating a court order based on SCOTUS which found a new right under the Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Why are you fighting this? Many, many things have been decided not as a violation of law, but as a violation of a right under the Constitution (Miranda ring a bell?). Indeed Amendments are far more powerful than any mere law.

I know that you will never admit that you are wrong. But feel free to demonstrate where she has been issuing licenses as directed by Kentucky law.

No licenses to issue as there was no valid marriage under Kentucky law.

I get it. The two straight couples that wanted to marry in the county, and who were included in the court case, don't actually exist and Davis has been issuing straight marriage licenses during this whole ordeal.

 Frazzled wrote:


No licenses to issue as there was no valid marriage under Kentucky law.

Frazz, she was refusing to issue licenses for straight couples as well. Two hetero couples are included in the initial suit against her if I can recall correctly.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ninja'd by D


EDIT: quotes and stuff.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No licenses to issue as there was no valid marriage under Kentucky law.

At some point one has to consider the possibility the discussion has degenerated into pigeon chess, and at that point it's foolhardy to be upset with the pigeon.

mmm...so instead of agreeing to disagree or think "maybe he's right but its nothing to do with the issue" you insult me. Awesome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Kentucky law also defines what marriage is. There is no gay marriage in Kentucky. She wasn't violating a law. She was violating a court order based on SCOTUS which found a new right under the Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. Why are you fighting this? Many, many things have been decided not as a violation of law, but as a violation of a right under the Constitution (Miranda ring a bell?). Indeed Amendments are far more powerful than any mere law.

I know that you will never admit that you are wrong. But feel free to demonstrate where she has been issuing licenses as directed by Kentucky law.

No licenses to issue as there was no valid marriage under Kentucky law.

I get it. The two straight couples that wanted to marry in the county, and who were included in the court case, don't actually exist and Davis has been issuing straight marriage licenses during this whole ordeal.

They aren't the ones who sued.
I'm not seeing why you people have burrs in your asses. They were suing to force her to perform her job, but thats only valid because SCOTUS found a previously unfound right in the Amendments. Otherwise she's perfectly within her capacity to sign said marriage certificate.
Whats the problem? Rights cases don't necessarily hinge on a law, but often on its application.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No licenses to issue as there was no valid marriage under Kentucky law.

At some point one has to consider the possibility the discussion has degenerated into pigeon chess, and at that point it's foolhardy to be upset with the pigeon.

mmm...so instead of agreeing to disagree or think "maybe he's right but its nothing to do with the issue" you insult me. Awesome.

I think it's in the best interest of the thread to try and avoid a descent into intellectual Calvinball, and that there's a pretty firmly established track record of you asking questions, having them answered, and then either pretending they didn't get answered, moving the goalposts, or throwing out some confused derp into weird unrelated areas. For example,

 Frazzled wrote:
They aren't the ones who sued.

If you google "straight couples sue" into Google, literally the first result, in the first sentence of the article shows that the suit is 4 couples, and two are straight.

I mean, it's every goddamn result on the search page save for one.

So you can be coy if you want to, but I suspect everyone in this thread knows exactly how this particular game ends.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

I get it. The two straight couples that wanted to marry in the county, and who were included in the court case, don't actually exist and Davis has been issuing straight marriage licenses during this whole ordeal.

They aren't the ones who sued.

Are you ever going to actually read the actual ruling and comment on what actually happened, or are you just going to continue to make things up?

Fact: Kentucky law says that as a county clerk it is her job to certify that all applicants meet the requirements of the law and to issue them licenses.
Fact: Davis decided to no longer issue any licenses to anyone.
Fact: All couples, straight or gay, were unable to obtain services in the county because she decided to no longer follow the law.
Fact: Two straight couples, as well as two gay couples, are named in the suit seeking a ruling in their favor.

Article on page 1 of thread wrote:The next day, Kevin Holloway and Jody Fernandez were refused as well. After years of referring to Ms. Fernandez as “my wife,” Mr. Holloway, said he had hoped to “make it official.” But like Ms. Miller and Ms. Roberts, they left the courthouse here empty-handed.

“I don’t want to have a gay wedding — I want to have one with Jody — but I don’t care if other people do,” said Mr. Holloway, who, along with the others, is a plaintiff in the A.C.L.U. suit.

Not only is it in a 5 second Google search, but its in the OP.

 Ouze wrote:

So you can be coy if you want to, but I suspect everyone in this thread knows exactly how this particular game ends.

With some sort of "harhar dachshund/wienderdogs/cavemen/hunting dinosaurs/my daughter has new color hair and can beat me up/Texas is awesome/where is my burrito" comment?

Wow, such hostility. If I knew I had friends like this, I'd have carried a gun. Oh wait...

 CptJake wrote:
So, what Federal law did she break?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court

She was ordered by the court to do her federal duty which she refused. She was found to be in contempt of court and was therefore jailed. Pretty simple.

Anyway, it will be a few days until there is an update to this thread - Friday or Monday.

Would anyone care to guess if she is going to comply?

 Ouze wrote:
Anyway, it will be a few days until there is an update to this thread - Friday or Monday.

Would anyone care to guess if she is going to comply?

I'm sure she will find some way to screw things up. I'm going back and forth between her having a bonfire in front of the building where she is burning all the blank licenses (aka "can't marry anyone if we don't have any licenses, lol") or locking them all up in a safe and refusing to tell anyone the combination (aka "can't marry anyone without the form and I have freedom of speech and can't be forced to say what the combination is, lol").

She might just tell her staff not to issue them again, but that wouldn't be as entertaining to watch.

 Ouze wrote:


Would anyone care to guess if she is going to comply?

We all know she's gonna wind up back in jail...
I'm wondering whats gonna happen when she fires her deputy clerks for issuing licenses. Would there be legal recourse? I imagine so (she would be firing them based off of religious discrimination), but I'm no expert on the law.

That's a bold gambit. I'd have to think if she dismisses all of the clerks and then claims that no one there can issue licenses, she may skate a little past the "Fox News Guest/Book Tour/Speaking Circuit" and into "actually going to jail, for reals."

She's already been referred to the state AG for misconduct, after all.

However, I can't presume to know her mindset. Perhaps she sees herself as a Masadan.