If she doesn't comply an orange jumpsuit is in her future (page 23)

Fisherman

Vivian, I think that you are the only person on this thread that did understand the Hint when Judge Bunning said "Risk". Let me spell it out for you. He said that he did not know if the licenses issued where valid. He used the word risk. In other words, If they wanted to be sure they got a valid license, they should go to another clerk. I think that is what he was implying. I am not sure 100 percent. I could be wrong.

Why in the world do you imagine their license would be invalid?

Get the picture? By the way you should have read COULD not would.

Viviane

I think that you are the only person on this thread that did understand the Hint when Judge Bunning said "Risk"

Thinking has been your problem all along. Let's see if it continues to trouble you!

Let me spell it out for you. He said that he did not know if the licenses issued where valid

Yes, he did. He is a federal judge saying he doesn't know something as 1) it is not his job to know that and 2) he is not an expert in the subject. Let's what you do with this absolutely reasonable fact.

He used the word risk.

Yep, he did. So far, so good! You've not done any thinking yet, but getting the facts down is a good start.

In other words, If they wanted to be sure they got a valid license, they should go to another clerk.

Looks like staying on the tracks was too much for you! He didn't use "other words", therefore you, as a demonstrated uninformed person, don't get to pretend to meant he said something else! Also, the county attorney said the licenses were valid, a duly appointed representative of both the county and state!

Thanks for playing, try again next time!

I think that is what he was implying. I am not sure 100 percent. I could be wrong.

Or, you know, you just just read what he said without trying to re-write it to mean something different! Protip: When you claim to be about to "spell it out' for me, that generally means you know what you are talking about. You should try that next time!

Get the picture?

Oh yeah, I do have a picture for someone that is going to "spell it out for me" but is uninformed, changes the story and admits they don't know what they are saying.

Rattigan350

What I see is total stupidity, especially from the lawyers. She was stupid for using religion as the reason.

She should have just used the law.

KRS 402.005 Definition of marriage.

As used and recognized in the law of the Commonwealth, "marriage" refers only to the civil status, condition, or relation of one (1) man and one (1) woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent upon those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.

Then tell everyone:

402.990 Penalties

(3) Any authorized person who knowingly solemnizes a marriage prohibited by thischapter shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

According to the law, if she issues same sex marriage licenses, she is guilty of a misdemeaner, until the legislature changes the law.

Some will say "The SCOTUS said same sex couples have the right to marry based on the us constitution". Ok, they said that. But the SCOTUS does not define laws in states. If it is a penal code law, then their ruling would mean that a person can not be punished for violation, no matter what is on the books, but this is not a penal law. SCOTUS ruling nullified

402.020 Other prohibited marriages.

(1)Marriage is prohibited and void: (d)Between members of the same sex;

But that did not change the definition of marriage in the law. It just removed the prohibition of it. She would have been totally right in refusing to issue the licenses based on 402.005 and 402.990. But hey, people don't bother to read the laws including her.

And remember that there is no obligation for the county clerk to issue marriage licenses because if a person has a right to marry, a person does not need to ask permission from the government. Like the Stratton OH case. A person has the right to preach door to door without getting permission from the mayor so that person does not need to give a name or get a permit.

Vidiot

rattigan350 - "She was stupid for using religion as the reason."

Hard-core fundamentalists can't help it.

From their POV, religion is the reason for everything.

Viviane

According to the law, if she issues same sex marriage licenses, she is guilty of a misdemeaner, until the legislature changes the law.
Some will say "The SCOTUS said same sex couples have the right to marry based on the us constitution". Ok, they said that. But the SCOTUS does not define laws in states.

Yeah, they can. If they accept a case brought to them, they can declare a state law to be valid based on whether or not it complies with the U.S. Constitution. In this case, they said "nope, not valid". Therefore, the law has for force and she would in fact not be committing a misdemeanor.

Simon

Do people know the reason for needing a marriage license in the first place? Why does the government get involved saying who can and cannot marry on an individual case-by-case basis? Are people ever denied for any reason other than invented ones like this idiots imaginary sky friend not liking it?

It's a leftover from a time when they wanted to prevent interracial marriage. That's it. It has no religious basis.

Seems strange that the right-wing christians are all for it but are typically the same group who are anti-government interference and supposedly all for freedom.

They don't even know what they believe.

SecretSlaveClass

Simon:
Seems strange that the right-wing christians are all for it but are typically the same group who are anti-government interference and supposedly all for freedom.

Yes the irrational fear which many right wing and independant so-called constitutionalists harbor for their government has always something I have found both perplexing and contradictory for a people who claim to be the ultimate patriots. Good point BTW.

Fisherman

It's a leftover from a time when they wanted to prevent interracial marriage. That's it. It has no religious basis.

Case in point: A black man and a white woman appear before an elected official for a marriage license. The elected official refuses to write the license based on the First Amendment.

Why does the government get involved saying who can and cannot marry on an individual case-by-case basis?

Because.every individual must qualify.

Are people ever denied for any reason other than invented ones like this idiots imaginary sky friend not liking it?

Yes.

Fisherman

Because.every individual must qualify.Marriage is governed by the gov. So is divorce.

Village Idiot

Simon:

"Do people know the reason for needing a marriage license in the first place?"

I take it that licenses formalize the marriage so that benefits and divorces could be easily handled. Otherwise couples who separate and have property disputes might simply state that they weren't "married" in the first place.

If she doesn't comply an orange jumpsuit is in her future

Share this