by DJS 508 Replies latest social current
We know because she said so, fisher person
Washington (CNN)"The Supreme Court on Monday night denied an emergency application from a Kentucky clerk who has been refusing to issue marriage licenses because of her religious objections to same-sex marriage."
Yeah, No
Not because you say so.
There is going to be a transition phase here. The duties of the clerk's office now include issuing same-sex marriage licences. If you cannot perform all of those duties, don't apply for the job. It's that simple.
Sucks for the bigot that CURRENTLY holds the job.... but who cares?
July, 2015: KY Governor Beshear has released a statement on county clerks who refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses in response to the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage bans.
Beshear emphasizes that clerks do not have to agree with the ruling, but reminds clerks that they took an oath to uphold the constitution.
"Our county clerks took an oath, as elected officials, to uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Kentucky and to provide important duties in their communities. This oath does not dictate what our clerks must believe, but it certainly prescribes how they must act in carrying out their duties as elected officials. Same-sex couples in Kentucky are now entitled to the issuance of a marriage license by every county clerk, based on Friday’s ruling by the United States Supreme Court. While there are certainly strongly held views on both sides of this issue, the fact remains that each clerk vowed to uphold the law regardless of his or her personal beliefs."
Ok Fish, in addition to hate, I will consider that she is also a goat-brained, pridefully stubborn Appalachian fundie of ScotsIrish descent with control issues. They are famous for digging their furry little heels in the ground and refusing to budge. On anything. And that she is loving her 15 minutes of fame.
Orange is the new black.
Sam Marcosson, a constitutional law professor at the University of Louisville was interviewed by the AP and explained that if the clerks won't issue a marriage license to a same-sex or any other couple, their options are to resign of go to jail for contempt of court:
"If it means that you simply cannot fulfill your duties because of your religious beliefs, what is required of you is that you can no longer hold that office," Marcosson said. "That applies to a judge, that applies to a senator, that applies to anyone who holds public office."
A bit of perspective would be nice here. All the gay couples that she might have refused to marry are still allowed to live openly as gay couples.
Relatively speaking, the USA tolerates homosexuality.
I think Stonewall & other gay rights organisations would do better to devote more attention to how gay people are treated in: Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, Jamaica ... the list is long, no?
Is it just me, or is there a certain irony/paradox - homosexuals/lesbians have campaigned for years for the right to marry, while heterosexuals living together have fought for the right not to marry - but to qualify for the same benefits as married people! :)
If you'd said such a thing 30 years ago, you'd have end up in the cuckoo's nest!
LUHE,
I haven’t a clue what you are trying to say with your comments regarding perspective. Are you suggesting that gays should just be happy they can openly be together without being stoned, imprisoned or otherwise ostracized? That they shouldn’t worry their gay little heads about such things as medical benefits, retirement accounts, tax incentives, having and adopting children and all of the other economic and social benefits awarded married couples by our society and the US government, including societal acceptance? Or simply shuffle along happily that we now ‘tolerate’ them????
Or are you suggesting that SCOTUS over-reacted when they made gay marriage legal? That the governor of KY is over-reacting when he reminds the clerk that she is violating an oath? When a Constitutional expert suggests that the clerk has 2 options – quit or go to jail? That I shouldn’t have posted this follow-up to one of the most hotly debated topics of our time?
Just what is it that makes you think that perspective is needed? That hate-spewing x-tians and politicos cause immeasurable harm should be ignored, honored?? Their hatred isn’t simply an opinion or a difference – it has caused the oppression of a large segment of our society and directly or indirectly led to young gays committing suicide and assaults and murders of gays, lesbians, and transgender people by those infected by the hate spewers.
I don’t know who Stonewell and other gay rights organizations are; I’ve never heard of them. Even if they are committed to ending discrimination against gays, why does that seem to offend you? The X-tians, African Americans, Jews, Environmentalists, Women and the Gay Asian Hitler Youth Cathlolic nuns all have their own advocacy groups. Why does the gay advocacy group bother you so?
You are capable of making some very good comments; this isn’t one of them. It ranks as one of the worst by any member. I’m embarrassed for you.
