10

Jailed Clerk Kim Davis Just Presented A 'Remedy' That Could Fix The Situation For Everyone

Posted by $ AJAshinoff 8 years, 8 months ago to Culture
285 comments | Share | Flag

Judge Bunning in ordering the imprisonment of Davis stated that: “The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order.” He further explained that the clerk’s good-faith belief is “simply not a viable defense,” dismissing her appeal to God’s moral law and freedom of conscience. “The idea of natural law superseding this court’s authority would be a dangerous precedent indeed,” he said.  

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by kevinw 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Perhaps the reasoning behind the ruling may have been flawed but what you are implying is that the state laws that were overturned, laws that restricted a marriage to a man and a woman are legitimate. This implies that the state has the right to violate individuals rights. States don't have rights. Governments don't have rights. Only Individuals have rights. And we need to fully understand those rights and uphold those rights.

    That is what you learn from Objectivism. If that is what you are here for.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Someone downvoted you. They must think the whole state of Kentucky Is backwards.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So it is the applicant's responsibility to go somewhere else in order to get equal treatment under the law? A government official has the right to pick and choose who is granted permission by his/her whim? For that matter, you're ok with a law that allows some people to freely associate and be recognized by the government but not other people seeking the same recognition? It's ok just because it's a state law and not a federal law? States can violate individual rights but the federal government can't?

    Just trying to clarify your position here.

    The Supreme Court Of The United States
    "No. 14-556. Argued April 28, 2015 - Decided June 26, 2015"
    "Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State"

    The Kentucky law is invalidated, as well as immoral. But as an Objectivist, you already know that, right?

    Edit; Reference to the Supreme Court
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Remember in that last Supreme Court ruling they stayed clear of the 9th, 10th, and 14th Amendments and went with Article IV of the Constitution. A marriage performed in another state must be given full faith and credit in all states. Nothing was said about anything else.

    Reading is a wonderful thing. More people ought to try it. The Righteous won't. The Debaters don't need to but might. To the rest of us its' a non issue except when it's over and goes to the next level which level is going over turn Judge Looney Toons.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They can't show a federal law either or a Supreme Court Decision - only the opinion of one arrogant power mad Judge. the State law says don't, she didn't it's legal under federal guidelines so far. The mistake was bringing in the religious defense when it wasn't needed.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Instead or rather, as a far easier method, our government rejected the whole document. Considering the vote for Bush II the second time and Obeyme's two goes at it the majority of the public seems to agree.

    By the way did anyone stop to think Barry's new name of Barack means lightning and another name for that is the Destroyer?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Good point. There was no need apparently to hide behind anything so why do so? As for her lawyer I'm wondering if he isn't ACLU also.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oh, YES, and I'm really looking forward to seeing what kind of crap O can sling to keep his past "achievements"... scholastic and otherwise... State Secrets Forever... Such scum.
    Of course, with just the right national crisis, solvable ONLY if he remains President For Life, could that happen, and, trusting him as much as I do, I wouldn't put it past him...
    The future will be more interesting all the time.

    As I've repeatedly told my wife's grandkids, Every Presidential Election since I could vote has been stranger and stranger than the previous one. Each one raises (or lowers) the bar for election insanity.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That was the second part of the conversation and I'll blow it up again. With the Patriot Act in place no one except individual citizens who understand rights and responsibilities of citizenship are the defense. It is certainly not someone whose apparently poor record of achievement scholastically is kept sealed especially since his fellow Columbia law students can't remember him even being there.

    Methinks we have a termite in the woodwork
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    State law aside, she invoked "God's authority" as the excuse for not performing her normal function of signing a certificate. It would be a little late for her to hide behind State law.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So you say. ;)) The point came up with as I said no less than the number one illiterate of the left Looney Clooney using the letter i but if you asked brainyquotes.com for the correct spelling the first two comments were Thomas Jefferson and M. Huckabee.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks, Michael and conscious, but the point I was trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to make was that, no matter what adjective is applied to the claimed "rights," you only get to enjoy them if the environment you're living in permits it.

    There are no stone tablets or golden books that can make sure that those rights will actually accrue to you at any time or place... that depends totally on the ethics, morals and culture and society you're living in...

    Clooney and Rangel have the power of the bully pulpits, but no more than any other politician or entertainment star do either one have the market cornered on Critical Thinking... Rangel, especially :)

    And to define unalienable rights as those that "can't be taken away"... Where, over the rainbow is THAT world?! Those 'rights' can disappear at the drop of a dictator's hat. That's like telling today's Venezuelans that they have 'unalienable rights' to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...'

    C'mon!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by conscious1978 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No need for sarcasm, Alan. I didn't use the link to imply you are a collectivist. I'm glad you "oppose the 'alienation' of those rights".

    You said, "The Rights are wonderful, desirable and certainly worth fighting (and maybe dying) for, but to think they're Always Available No Matter What is a serious breach of observable reality, and I'd argue that to Rand's face if I could." — I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. I never implied that your rights couldn't be violated, or that one may live where they are being violated. Neither did Rand; so not much to argue about there.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago
    If Kentucky Law did not allow for that type of marriage the Judge over reached him or herself. how much did Soros or the ACLU pay him or her is the real question. I don't even see this as a Federal issue just another act of left wing fascism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So?

    What decision by the supreme court are you referring to and if it's that recent same sex decision it said no such thing. Not even close. If it's another decision what is the cite? If it is the law in Kentucky what is the cite? Wishful thinking without factual evidence is insufficient and is exactly why we got to this point. Too many couch potatoes with fairy tales.

    Whoops I didn't intend it that way but it works so leave it.

    All the applicant had to do is go get married somewhere else where it is legal. THEN the clerk would have had to accept it under that latest decision.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I would be willing to bet she won that election before the recent change. Question now for me is what does the STATE law call for. DID they change it after that go round a few months ago and did the other states fall into line. Those judges didn't really state all states must allow that sort of marriage. They really only said one state must honor the contract when performed in another state that does allow it. Ergo Sum all they have to do is drive to Ohio, Massachusetts or one of the others. d

    This judge is clearly in error UNLESS Kentucky changed it's laws in the last sixty some days or prior.

    Wonder how much Soros is paying him?

    Clearly she is not allowed to interpret the law of the state so has anyone checked that point? Last I looked only Presidents can act in a lawless manner of that fashion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's the purpose of moral philosophy if used as a tool to validate one's basic belief system. The near part is it doesn't require a public confession it just requires self honesty and self respect.

    If Kim had been a muslim she would have been refusing to serve alcoholic drinks on airplanes and demanding the right to have an ID photo with her face covered by a burka.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    you both lose. the quote is 'certain unalienable rights.' It was test question in high school civics. We then had to define the difference. Back then in the pre PC days

    Unalienable meant could not be changed at all.

    Inalienable meant could be changed under certain circumstances.

    It helps to use the right word therefore plus
    AF''s opinion is more nearly correct.

    In another search the word popped up by noen other than one of the chief left wing socialist fascists in the nation and a hard corps opponent of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. along with his secular progressive friends. Note he and someone named Charles Rangel used the incorrect leftist spelling in order to support their position. here it is...

    "I've been working with Pat Robertson on Africa debt-relief, and we disagree on virtually everything except certain very specific, inalienable rights, and the truth is that morality and patriotism come in all shapes and sizes.
    George Clooney

    Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/search_res...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 8 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ok, you win... 'discussion over.'
    Inalienable rights? Written down where? Enforced by whom?

    I'm not a Collectivist like your second link refers, but if the Collective decides that Your Rights OR My Rights are Now Under Their Power and Control, the 'inalienability of my rights' is moot.

    Fucking MOOT.

    I oppose the "alienation" of those rights by Anyone, and particularly by Government or Thugs or The Collective.... but as a trivial example, those "inalienable rights" went out the window in WWII Germany or "modern" North Korea.

    The Rights are wonderful, desirable and certainly worth fighting (and maybe dying) for, but to think they're Always Available No Matter What is a serious breach of observable reality, and I'd argue that to Rand's face if I could.

    I don't deny they Exist or Should Exist or Are Wonderful Things for Everyone... I just assert that our capability of Enjoying Them and Practicing Them in Real Life DOES depend on a cultural or social consensus and support OF those rights, and without that support, yes, we become barbarians.

    So, are those inalienable rights carved in stone somewhere? Which museum displays them?

    Cheers!
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo