The problem is that men putting it on paper, making it so, means they see themselves as being able to remove or alter those rights. Further, the Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights was designed to limit, restrict, and minimize government - men and their ability to screw with other peoples existence. In no way was the Bill of Rights ASSIGNING the rights that people have.

Agreed.

This was a simple statement to define something. I assume that Ewv took the point which only goes to show his blatant anger at anything related to anything remotely faith oriented or anyone mentioning faith in any context even in passing. This mentality, even in general conversation such as this statement, makes the Gulch unwelcoming and uninviting to me and others - his/her/its goal.

Like a kidney stone, I can't wait for something concrete to happen to ewv which allows actual contemplative conversation based in reality, using generally accepted and recognizable terms used by our Founding Fathers, to occur.

One can only claim disparate treatment under the law in equivalent circumstances. That's my point. The circumstances aren't the same. SCOTUS invented a right - manufactured it out of whole cloth as Justice Scalia put it. That they ignored the basic differences in the genders involved in marriage and decided that they didn't matter is an avoidance of reality.

Should the Clerk fulfill her duties? Absolutely. However, I would point out that to this point there is no law on the books in Kentucky which recognizes same-sex marriage nor which instructs the Clerk to recognize such. So she is being true to the laws of her State to which she was elected. That the State and the Supreme Court are at odds is a problem that the Legislature of Kentucky needs to take up - either through nullification of the ruling or by changing their law. Remember, the Supreme Court can not make law - they can only rule laws unConstitutional.

Did you mean to say that "there is NO rights violation."?

I agree about his choice of phrase.
Another quote (paraphrase) I attribute to Ayn Rand but don't really know; "Using an incorrect method to come to the correct conclusion does not prove the method." You could argue all day long over the reasoning the Supreme Court used for their conclusion, (both sides) and the same for this Judge but, continuing the quote, "Proving the method incorrect does not necessarily disprove the conclusion".

No two situations are identical, the question is whether they are reasonably comparable. For instance, the government cannot recognize and enforce certain contracts for redheads and not for brunettes. Citizens under a limited government based on objective law have a right to have valid contracts recognized and (if necessary) enforced by said government. And it certainly is a rights violation if a government, based on sexual orientation, selectively issues "licenses" that have a big impact on the amount of federal and state income taxes a couple pays, spousal Social Security benefits, employer health insurance for a spouse, visitation rights and decision-making rights if a spouse is ill, and many other important issues. The Supreme Court based the decision I cited on the 14th Amendment. Correctly, I think.

here is the Oath she took:
Oath of clerk and deputies:

Every clerk and deputy, in addition to the oath prescribed by Section 228 of the Constitution, shall, before entering on the duties of his office, take the following oath in presence of the Circuit Court:

“I, _, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”



— Source: Kentucky Legislative Research Commission

I concur there is no rights violation. But, there most definitely is not equal treatment under the law. SCOTUS ruled. Now, the State can exercise its rights on these licenses, but an elected official must carry out their duties. The State can take a stand, but she broke her Oath to the citizens of her county.Think of it this way, if they knew she might do this, people may not have chosen to vote for her. OTOH, I think the Judge's ruling was stunning. His choice of phrase regarding natural law vs govt was chilling.

I saw the Huckabee video. He was never even an option for me (except he's the only candidate promoting the Fair Tax) but with all these candidates jumping on the "religious freedom" bandwagon things are looking pretty grimm.

One or two or more people were being treated differently than one or two or more other people, by a government official, under the law that requires them to follow a procedure and then doesn't give equal access to all parties under that law. That's discrimination by the government. That's a rights violation. That's why the Supreme Court overturned Kentucky's discriminating laws. Because they didn't allow equal treatment under the law. It is absolutely about individual rights. Rights are not something you can bury behind legalspeak when it suits your purpose and then drag them out when it is more convenient. Hiding your religious views behind lawyerese (made up words are hard to spell) isn't going to change that.

No, it doesn't, because no rights are being abridged. That's what I'm trying to tell you. The Fourteenth doesn't apply because this is a contract situation - not a rights violation.

The other problem is that in order to claim discrimination, you also have to show that the two cases are identical. They are not. The physiology alone dictates pretty substantial differences that entirely warrant the two (or three or four) situations being treated differently both in name and in substance. That was the purpose of the miscegenation laws which were and remain on the books in many states. If you want to argue that there should be no restraints placed by government on contractual negotiations that is one thing (but really doesn't work if you expect the government to enforce such). But to argue that the two situations are identical is false.

except she wasn't just taking responsibility for HER actions. She instructed her employees as well, since her signature is on all licenses granted. So no licenses for same sex couples were granted during this -I'll call a "siege" by Ms. Davis. This was not about religious freedom. This was about bigotry and using government influence to deny one group of people something another group get because they are sanctioned by a deity. That ignoramus got her 15 minutes. Now can we get back to important issues that drive the world?

Isn't democracy wonderful? As long as you're agreeing with the popular side. And the guns of government are behind you and not in front of you. Davis was the one with those guns behind her. If you're going to promote that just remember that those guns will turn on you in an instant when the other parasites get hungry.
If your conscience is that corrupt, maybe it is not a lawyer you need to be talking to.
Weren't the Clintons lawyers?

I think you're agreeing, yes? :)

Suggesting that she behave rationally and stop personally redefining law in accordance with her religious beliefs would have no effect on her.

The effect of graduated income tax rates depends on the size of the incomes. If one partner has little or no income the net rate is lower than if filing singly. If both have about equal incomes the effective rate is higher.

She was released (Sept 8, 2015) because her department has been issuing marriage licenses, with the condition that she is not to interfere. The clerks working in the department are also under court order.

Her lawyer is claiming that licenses issued without her name are invalid. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...

Check FaceBook and the wealth of comments about her... most posts are negative, but with LOTS of replies... :)

Two of the applicants who were denied have lived in the county for 11 years and own property there. None of them should have to go to another county for the same reason they cannot be told to drink from another water fountain.

They did file a complaint against her. That is why she went to jail for defying the court order after months of this nonsense.

Inalienable rights means that our rights exist as principles in accordance with man's nature and therefore cannot be taken away, only violated. It does not mean rights "come from God or a higher authority", which is meaningless. Please stop promoting religious dogma. It does not belong here and you know it.

The Constitutional foundation for this action on behalf of civil rights is the 14th Amendment, but it is not the Federal government interfering in marriage. Kim Davis is interfering.

She absolutely did not. Conservatives are hijacking her writing to promote the antithesis of her ideas.

Fortunately the 14th amendment properly says that states cannot violate civil rights.

Only individuals have rights. Government cannot and does not operate by "right". There is no such entity as a "society". It is an abstraction referring to a group of people. Subordinating the group to the rights of the individual is not a "club", it prevents a mob's clubs from trampling the individual. Conservative "states rights" is tribalist tyranny.

The woman was jailed for refusing to perform her job in accordance with the civil rights of those legally qualified for a marriage license. Davis ordered her entire department to deny them. She has no right to do that. That is why she was put in jail.