‘It became necessary to destroy the the institution of marriage to save it’, a Kentucky county clerk said today. He was talking about the decision by Christian clerks to halt all marriages regardless of the consequences, to halt the imposition of the Gay Agenda.
It’s like Vietnam up in here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bến_Tre
In the true backwoods of Kentucky, where these counties are, yes, they miss that disconnect. But not all of KY is that way. And the AG story is a good one. Hopefully he’ll be our next Gov.
. and that according to the county attorney, he could refuse licenses to anyone besides minors, who are required to have licenses in the counties where they live.
I think the license refusal thing for minors has to do with the statutes that require the licensees be of a certain age (16, 18, depending on the State). In that case, the clerk has a legal obligation to refuse the license, unless there is a parent or guardian to sign for it.
That’s ok.
There are civil legalities that makes a license pertinent.
Otherwise? You’re free to shack-up with whomever you please.
jw1
Assuming these are evangelicals or fundies, I wonder if they also have problems marrying Catholics, Jews, atheists, etc?
I would ask for for the same respect for my decision
Sure, as long as your decision is to resign because you can’t perform your duties. Otherwise, fuckwad, you deserve, not respect, but termination instanter.
Not that there was much choice politically. The beauty of it is they knew it would’t fly, they wrote it that way on purpose. Placate the wingers to assure Dem Gov’s re-election and then go so over the top in the case that it will be laughed out of court. Whether the AG files or Gov hires outside, either way tax payer money is used. Another item the wingers just didn’t get. AG gets to say he didn’t waste money on case while he is running for Gov. now.
Stronger, and tracks legal language. You get a like.
I’ve read this story before in history books. It’s a repeat of the same story of the '50s and 60s. Except then it was black and white, and now it’s rainbow colored.
History repeats itself because the willfully ignorant weren’t listening the first time. The people on the wrong side of history will lose once again.
Firing is sufficient. The others would be overreaching, anyway.
What would you arrest them for? There’s no contempt without a court order to flout. They’ve violated their oaths of office, but that’s not a crime. Official oppression? They’ve made announcements and are refusing service to anybody. Until someone actually applies for and demands a license, you have no victim. That would be one hard information to draft. Until they refuse an actual applicant, you’d be arresting them for speech.
Depends. If it’s an elective office, we might need an impeachment or judicial proceeding. If appointive, whoever does the appointing can probably can and replace them.
Tata, cheerio and all that rot.
You can pick up your paychecks at the end of the week.
Moving on…
1964: Civil Rights Act
1965: Voting Rights Act
1968: Fair Housing Act
Every one of them took some push from the federal government to get enforced. The latter two are still honored mostly in the breach. Thanks, Roberts.
I think what’s meant is, let adults get their licenses in the next county. Minors can’t do that.
You can say that again. And will probably have many opportunities to do so before these cretins get in line.
A marriage is a contract between two people, the State needs only to register it to accomplish civil legalities. No need to grant “permissions” or for “licensing” provisions.
“I respect their position — the gay community’s — that that is how they want to live … but I would ask for for the same respect for my decision,” Casey Davis said.
The tree of stupid has deep root in this individual. The gay community wanted equal rights as was granted by our constitution a couple hundred years ago. Davis however, is simply failing to do his job and should not be granted respect for refusing to the job the people of KY are paying him to do via their taxes.
IF JEsUS waS here, HE’d aGREE WITH PUPPies. ON Every TOPic wHICH PUPPies COMMents!!1!!!one!1!!!
They’d have no way of knowing couples’ religions, if any. It would be illegal to ask, and thus not on the forms. A same-sex couple presenting themselves for a license might speak for itself in that regard.
And that might be the whole reason it hadn’t come up with these bozos.
My religion is Do-Nothingism. It forbids me from carrying out any duties whatsoever unless I’m in the mood. It would be religious discrimination not to hire me, and religious discrimination again to fire me, once hired.
She can gift-wrap her bigotry in all the religious claptrap she can find—it will still be bigotry, and she’ll still be guilty of shirking her responsibilities as a civil servant.
She should be fired, and not given a reference.