When seeking employment by a government entity...

than I was pointing.

It took a "gay marriage" before she saw the error in issuing ALL(even "straight") marriage licenses?

That's an unusual tack to take....UNLESS she is going to use the "Hey!!! I'm not anti-gay...I'm anti-marriage" defense.

I suppose she would have to file for divorce (yet again) to make that defense to appear not just a smokescreen for some other motive.

It's a good thing the court clerk that handled her 3 previous divorces believed in divorce and the other "government flunkies" that passed her a marriage license believed people could re-marry.

I hope she has a good lawyer, I think a few days in jail will adjust he "morals".

Can't toss stones in a glass house, without losing your house.

In two directions. I'm not good at decrypting but, when I re-read

"I read she was married 4 times herself...it's a wonder she would think anyone should get a marriage license, she's only been married to men herself....how's THAT worked out for her?

Perhaps SHE should try something different in her own life" (underline is mine)

I suppose you could be suggesting she try marrying a woman? Of course that would make being gay a choice rather than chance. That's not a belief I hold.

And this statement

"It took a "gay marriage" before she saw the error in issuing ALL(even "straight") marriage licenses?"

must mean that you know she didn't single out gay persons but stopped issuing the licenses to anyone and instructed applicants to visit a nearby county. In some way, IMO, that seems thoughtful rather than spiteful. It's not unusual in my state for people to cross county lines for licensing services if they feel there's an advantage to doing so. Of course there may be some who don't think their desire for marriage is worth an extra 1/2 tank of gas.

on an extra 1/2 tank of gas to go elsewhere when you can deliberately bring publicity to your cause by making a scene in the clerk's office?

Those who object to how she is handling her elected office can begin a recall petition. With enough signatures to qualify, they can begin a campaign to round up as many dissenting people as they wish and bring them to the polls to have her removed. They can also mount a campaign to call for her impeachment. These are the legal and proper procedures we already have in place if we think an elected official is unsuitable for office. Granted it will take longer than carrying signs and making a big enough stink to get the media on one's side, it is a way to allow the greater populous a voice in the outcome. We have the right to "referendum and recall". Why not make use of it instead of throwing tantrums.

Why doesn't she resign?

Bump someone else working in the office up to her position.

Since, she said, when elected

I don’t even know where to start. I am so humbled and feel so blessed that the people put so much confidence in me. My words can never express the appreciation but I promise to each and every one that I will be the very best working clerk that I can be and will be a good steward of their tax dollars and follow the statutes of this office to the letter…

I guess they DO have a statute that says same sex marriages are now officially recognized by the state of Kentucky.

Why should citizens be inconvenienced by her actions?

The world/state doesn't revolve around her.

I guess they DO have a statute that says DOMA is now officially recognized by the Federal Government..

Why should citizens be inconvenienced by BO's actions?

The world/state doesn't revolve around HIM.

Why doesn't she resign? For the same reason BO doesn't.......he can ignore laws on the books, so why can't she? Sanctuary cities ignore the laws, why can't she?

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.......unless you're a liberal......just look at HC's actions.

Because Federal supersedes State?

IF/WHEN you can figure out how both levels can be "different" and 'the same"...

married in ONE state...not married in ANOTHER state.

Hypocrite?

look in YOUR mirror.

YOU complain about Obama ignoring laws and don't complain about her ignoring laws.

then Sanctuary cities are illegal already no matter WHAT the state/local government passes...........can you say "law breakers getting off scott free by this FEDERAL administration"? Especially since this administration files federal lawsuits against States they don't agree with every day of the week. Having your cake and eating it, too? That door HAS to swing only ONE way or it doesn't swing in either direction at all......which do you want? (Not that you have any say in this but come across the border and BO will let you vote anyhow)

Please explain how you or any other citizen is "inconvenienced" by 2 people of the same sex getting married.

having to stand in line and wait behind them, while they get a marriage certificate, before you get your marriage certificate, doesn't count as being 'inconvenienced".

People have been inconvenienced by BO's actions as President since day one.......the list is too numerous, but think of the long waiting times for people to file for welfare and you get the picture.

SCOTUS "creates" laws?

NO mention here of "creating" anything....

The Supreme Court has a special role to play in the United States system of government. The Constitution gives it the power to check, if necessary, the actions of the President and Congress.

It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is the final judge in all cases involving laws of Congress, and the highest law of all — the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is like a referee on a football field.

"final judge in all cases involving laws of CONGRESS...and the Constitution"

CONGRESS didn't pass ANY laws regarding gay marriage....in fact, the ONLY law that IS on the books written by CONGRESS is DOMA.

I showed it's not it's job to "create" laws and it doesn't "create" laws.

You haven't shown it "creates" a law.

The federal statute is invalid, is NOT "creating" a law...it is saying that, the law, in the form it was written is invalid. That's called interpreting. The SCOTUS said...you can't do that.


RE: in fact, the ONLY law that IS on the books written by CONGRESS is DOMA.

Is it?...still "on the books", even though the SCOTUS has ruled it "unconstitutional"?

Has the gov changed DOMA?

Supreme Court DOMA Decision Rules Federal Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional

WASHINGTON -- The Defense of Marriage Act, the law barring the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court ruled Wednesday by a 5-4 vote.

"The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment."

an "unconstitutional' law on the books...what purpose does that serve?

has the ability to rule what is on the books in the FEDERAL Constitution (not a STATE Constitution) is now UN-Constitutional WITHOUT Congress passing a new law making it so? That's what had to happen with Prohibition....the CONGRESS had to pass a new law repealing it. SCOTUS CANNOT determine that alone. You seem to have a real issue with what can and cannot be done with our Constitutional Laws, JP.

SCOTUS has now literally CREATED three new laws in the last three years....two for Obamacare, and one regarding DOMA....ALL done without benefit of Congress. BO has done this repeatedly by EO alone.

Irregardless of this particular topic, Davis's FIRST AMENDMENT rights are being violated and religious FREEDOMS are one of the FIRST issues our Founding Fathers wanted protected AT ALL COSTS.

what I'm saying is

SCOTUS does NOT create a law.

YOUR

(BO didn't create that law...SCOTUS did) crap you're throwing in to muddy the waters...is just more "divert and deflect" on YOUR part.

Start a OP with BO as "the subject"...don't use others as starting point to trash Obama. BO This, BO That.

Use my Trump Trashing Posts as an example.

That clerk is simply signing a piece of paper saying "Yeah we got you certificate...IF you ever want a copy of it...it's over here in a drawer"....NOT giving her blessing...

Who do you think she is?...The Pope?

Filing a piece of paper at a government office isn't having an audience with the Pope and getting his "blessing".

I wonder how many "marriage certificates" she has on her mantle at home....Probably doesn't even have her own marriage certificate in a place of honour at home.

Congress is irrelevant and not needed since BOTH BO and SCOTUS can just create new law out of thin air? How is that crap?

EVERY document YOU sign assumes that you KNOW what you're signing and that you AGREE with it.........

Get real, JP.......YOU are throwing crap against a wall hoping at least SOME of it will stick, and you're losing the game except smearing the wall with dark brown stuff.........

Start another thread about BO

I asked a question regarding LAW since it pertains to this thread and how certain people can ignore it but others have to obey and you refuse to answer. OK

and I'm not in favor of the precedent that way of doing business has already set.

she isn't following the statutes.

Seems fairly basic....


YOU'RE FIRED!!!!! as "the Donald" is known to say.

She's been elected.......resignation. impeachment, or accommodations are the only recourse. Accommodations should be afforded since the First Amendment trumps a newly illegally created law (which will be challenged I SUSPECT).

It takes the case to the people. Isn't that was our president does when he's having trouble getting support for a plan? He goes to those blocks of people who voted for him and asks them to make noise. I don't like it but he's been effective in getting his way by doing so.

A recall election is a proper path if this woman has been derelict in her duties. An interesting twist could be that she ran as a Democrat and defeated a Republican for this office. Apparently, her numerous marriages and charges of nepotism were issues raised by her opponent but she still won. I would wonder now, after this incident, what would happen to party line voting habits. Would Republicans want to kick her out for what she's done or would it be up to those who supported her previously?

stated here more than once. No need to repeat, IMO. You've been fairly good at finding old stuff to fling back at people. Find my posts in this regard and fling them back. They won't land with any force.