Kim Davis - even Fox News thinks her case is fruityloopy
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
Does it not discomfort you to have an opinion that you cannot explain?
On mandates, our system does not require that the party of Government must include every policy and decision in its pre election manifesto. See again Edmund Burke's description of the system from 1774, as true today as it was then (the UK was not a democracy in 1774, BTW, but the representative system of legislation continued when the UK transitioned from propertied oligarchy to democracy). Note also that MPs across Parliament voted in favour of the change - it was not forced through by the Coalition without cross-party support. Some Bishops opposed it, but who GAF about them?
Yes hence why I said I cannot as yet work out why because it does trouble me to a degree as I have nothing against people being gay quite genuinely. In fact I find gay people to be some of the most fun and thoughtful people to be around however on this issue I take issue. On mandates, our system does not require that the party of Government must include every policy and decision in its pre election manifesto. See again Edmund Burke's description of the system from 1774, as true today as it was then (the UK was not a democracy in 1774, BTW, but the representative system of legislation continued when the UK transitioned from propertied oligarchy to democracy). Note also that MPs across Parliament voted in favour of the change - it was not forced through by the Coalition without cross-party support. Some Bishops opposed it, but who GAF about them?
The reality though as I said is in general it makes no real difference anyway marriage these days is an absolute farce. To me the idea of marriage has always been a man and woman married till death us do part. In our "modern" times however marriage is now a fashion accessory. Wanted today unwanted tomorrow. Nobody seems to really give a s
t as to the true meaning as I see it so to me worrying about gay marriage is really like worrying that my slice of mouldy old cake is smaller than everyone elses. Kinda dumb.As to mandates. I am fully aware that politicians do not need to put every policy into their pre election manifesto but this issue was so far down the list as to be irrelevant yet he made it an absolute priority over other issues which were much much more important.
Edited by jimmybobby on Monday 14th September 18:20
jimmyjimjim said:
Mrr T said:
In The US the decision was made by 5 Supreme Court judges, no legislation no democratic vote. What ever you may think on the subject this clearly fails the democratic test.
As BV says, it's legit.Even the most reactionary of my friends are of the opinion that while they respect the mad old baggage for having the courage of her convictions, the proper course of action would have been for her to resign.
Mrr T said:
jimmyjimjim said:
Mrr T said:
In The US the decision was made by 5 Supreme Court judges, no legislation no democratic vote. What ever you may think on the subject this clearly fails the democratic test.
As BV says, it's legit.Even the most reactionary of my friends are of the opinion that while they respect the mad old baggage for having the courage of her convictions, the proper course of action would have been for her to resign.
TBH I'm not sure which laws your referring to but I'm sure if congress, or the supreme court care enough about Obama not applying laws then he will be under pressure to either apply them or resign, ultimately the electorate will also have their say no matter what, and no doubt someone somewhere will be trying to get a case all the way up to the supreme court if the situation is as bad as you seem to think it is.
Laws are not applied all the time, A shopkeeper may not call the police when a kid pockets a sweet, if he did the police may not pass it on to the prosecution service, they may not take it to court.....In the case of gay marriage in the US it has been a right for a long time apparently, its just no one managed to get anyone to rule in favor until recently when the highest court in the USA said the Constitution allows for it.
Edited by ViperDave on Tuesday 15th September 09:57
Breadvan72 said:
In the US, the Constitution is a living and evolving instrument, to be interpreted by the Supreme Court. Thus the democratic settlement of the US gives to the majority in the nine Judge Court the right and power to determine what the living instrumemnt means from time to time.
That's the view of those who believe in a living constitution but there is also an alternative view call originalisim.The arguments are far to complex for this blog.
However. the decision of 5 Judges to use the 14th Amendment, an amendment which when passed did not have anything to do with gay marriage and indeed those who supported the amendment would not even have considered it had anything to do with gay marriage, to impose gay marriage on to the population of the US with no democratic ratification does push the limits of even the living constitution argument. If you want more discussion can I suggest you read the decenting arguments (remember this was a 5-4 majority).
Mrr T said:
That's the view of those who believe in a living constitution but there is also an alternative view call originalisim.
The arguments are far to complex for this blog.
However. the decision of 5 Judges to use the 14th Amendment, an amendment which when passed did not have anything to do with gay marriage and indeed those who supported the amendment would not even have considered it had anything to do with gay marriage, to impose gay marriage on to the population of the US with no democratic ratification does push the limits of even the living constitution argument. If you want more discussion can I suggest you read the decenting arguments (remember this was a 5-4 majority).
you keep referring to things but never posting any links to what your referring to, help us out here!The arguments are far to complex for this blog.
However. the decision of 5 Judges to use the 14th Amendment, an amendment which when passed did not have anything to do with gay marriage and indeed those who supported the amendment would not even have considered it had anything to do with gay marriage, to impose gay marriage on to the population of the US with no democratic ratification does push the limits of even the living constitution argument. If you want more discussion can I suggest you read the decenting arguments (remember this was a 5-4 majority).
ViperDave said:
Mrr T said:
That's the view of those who believe in a living constitution but there is also an alternative view call originalisim.
The arguments are far to complex for this blog.
However. the decision of 5 Judges to use the 14th Amendment, an amendment which when passed did not have anything to do with gay marriage and indeed those who supported the amendment would not even have considered it had anything to do with gay marriage, to impose gay marriage on to the population of the US with no democratic ratification does push the limits of even the living constitution argument. If you want more discussion can I suggest you read the decenting arguments (remember this was a 5-4 majority).
you keep referring to things but never posting any links to what your referring to, help us out here!The arguments are far to complex for this blog.
However. the decision of 5 Judges to use the 14th Amendment, an amendment which when passed did not have anything to do with gay marriage and indeed those who supported the amendment would not even have considered it had anything to do with gay marriage, to impose gay marriage on to the population of the US with no democratic ratification does push the limits of even the living constitution argument. If you want more discussion can I suggest you read the decenting arguments (remember this was a 5-4 majority).
Edited by Mrr T on Tuesday 15th September 11:09
Well i haven't finished reading the dissenting arguments yet and anyway I wouldn't even start to claim i know a fraction of what the 9 judges do, not least of which because i haven't really followed the gay marriage debate until kim davis peaked my interest because she was from KY where i spent a decent amount of time this summer, as such i would bow to the majority of the supreme court as to be authoritative.
However the core of the arguments are in relation to the definition of marriage as it goes back millennia. My first thoughts to this is as marriage is a social construct then it was fine all the time it was just a commitment arrangement between two people, however society has changed significantly in the last 150 years or so and one example would be medical care, such that 100's of years ago it would be inconceivable for a partner to have to decide on life or death medical treatment for a loved one, it was either they lived or died, now days its so complex with what can be done, and its not limited to just medical care, we have integrated marriage into so many aspect of life so that it is no longer just a stable relationship to being up children, but rather an overall legal authority between two people and that should no longer be restricted to opposite sex couples.
The decent seemed to also worry if they had the authority to change the definition of marriage, but as the highest court in the land if they don't who does? Its reasonable to argue its society that does, but society can not do that all the time it is not legal, 5 of the judges felt that it was against the Constitution to deny same sex couples to marry and therefore they removed that legal block and allowed them and society to start re-defining marriage as to what is socially acceptable
However the core of the arguments are in relation to the definition of marriage as it goes back millennia. My first thoughts to this is as marriage is a social construct then it was fine all the time it was just a commitment arrangement between two people, however society has changed significantly in the last 150 years or so and one example would be medical care, such that 100's of years ago it would be inconceivable for a partner to have to decide on life or death medical treatment for a loved one, it was either they lived or died, now days its so complex with what can be done, and its not limited to just medical care, we have integrated marriage into so many aspect of life so that it is no longer just a stable relationship to being up children, but rather an overall legal authority between two people and that should no longer be restricted to opposite sex couples.
The decent seemed to also worry if they had the authority to change the definition of marriage, but as the highest court in the land if they don't who does? Its reasonable to argue its society that does, but society can not do that all the time it is not legal, 5 of the judges felt that it was against the Constitution to deny same sex couples to marry and therefore they removed that legal block and allowed them and society to start re-defining marriage as to what is socially acceptable
Edited by ViperDave on Tuesday 15th September 11:32
ViperDave said:
The decent seemed to also worry if they had the authority to change the definition of marriage, but as the highest court in the land if they don't who does? Its reasonable to argue its society that does, but society can not do that all the time it is not legal, 5 of the judges felt that it was against the Constitution to deny same sex couples to marry and therefore they removed that legal block and allowed them and society to start re-defining marriage as to what is socially acceptable
I would suggest the state legislators elected by the people of the state.Edited by ViperDave on Tuesday 15th September 11:32
As for this case have you wondered why Kim Davis was targeted. She is the elected official in a small town. She is 1 of over 100 Kentucky officials who can issue marriages licences. It would seem some gay activists actively sort out any official who might not be prepared to issue a licence and then hounded them to jail.
ViperDave said:
TBH I'm not sure which laws your referring to but I'm sure if congress, or the supreme court care enough about Obama not applying laws then he will be under pressure to either apply them or resign, ultimately the electorate will also have their say no matter what, and no doubt someone somewhere will be trying to get a case all the way up to the supreme court if the situation is as bad as you seem to think it is.
Laws are not applied all the time, A shopkeeper may not call the police when a kid pockets a sweet, if he did the police may not pass it on to the prosecution service, they may not take it to court.....In the case of gay marriage in the US it has been a right for a long time apparently, its just no one managed to get anyone to rule in favor until recently when the highest court in the USA said the Constitution allows for it.
A shopkeeper can choose not to prosecute because he has suffered the loss.Laws are not applied all the time, A shopkeeper may not call the police when a kid pockets a sweet, if he did the police may not pass it on to the prosecution service, they may not take it to court.....In the case of gay marriage in the US it has been a right for a long time apparently, its just no one managed to get anyone to rule in favor until recently when the highest court in the USA said the Constitution allows for it.
Edited by ViperDave on Tuesday 15th September 09:57
The US Constitution does not allow the President to instruct officials not to apply a law. The problem is it more difficult to impeach the President than some small time Kentucky official.
Mrr T said:
I would suggest the state legislators elected by the people of the state.
As for this case have you wondered why Kim Davis was targeted. She is the elected official in a small town. She is 1 of over 100 Kentucky officials who can issue marriages licences. It would seem some gay activists actively sort out any official who might not be prepared to issue a licence and then hounded them to jail.
She also told all her junior clerks (including her son...) to not issue any licences. IIRC, those who were named in the legal action were actually residents of her county and hence surely had every right to expect their county officials to issue the licence. As for this case have you wondered why Kim Davis was targeted. She is the elected official in a small town. She is 1 of over 100 Kentucky officials who can issue marriages licences. It would seem some gay activists actively sort out any official who might not be prepared to issue a licence and then hounded them to jail.
Presumably then, if one of the officials is against mixed race marriages, it's okay to insist that couple go to a different county instead?
Mrr T said:
I would suggest the state legislators elected by the people of the state.
As for this case have you wondered why Kim Davis was targeted. She is the elected official in a small town. She is 1 of over 100 Kentucky officials who can issue marriages licences. It would seem some gay activists actively sort out any official who might not be prepared to issue a licence and then hounded them to jail.
All part of the Gay Agenda. As for this case have you wondered why Kim Davis was targeted. She is the elected official in a small town. She is 1 of over 100 Kentucky officials who can issue marriages licences. It would seem some gay activists actively sort out any official who might not be prepared to issue a licence and then hounded them to jail.
Say, you couldn't lend me your copy? I think they must have forgotten to give me mine when I signed up for the Homosexual Lifestyle.
Mrr T said:
I would suggest the state legislators elected by the people of the state.
As for this case have you wondered why Kim Davis was targeted. She is the elected official in a small town. She is 1 of over 100 Kentucky officials who can issue marriages licenses. It would seem some gay activists actively sort out any official who might not be prepared to issue a license and then hounded them to jail.
Likewise though have you wondered why the "gay agenda" saw her as a target in the first place? and its rather a stretch to blame those seeking marriage licenses for her contempt of court, even if it was targeted, confrontation would have happened one day, and probably better it happened to a couple prepared for it and backed by lawyers than some poor timid couple who have just come out and but decided to get married only to be confronted by hate and discrimination!As for this case have you wondered why Kim Davis was targeted. She is the elected official in a small town. She is 1 of over 100 Kentucky officials who can issue marriages licenses. It would seem some gay activists actively sort out any official who might not be prepared to issue a license and then hounded them to jail.
Mrr T said:
A shopkeeper can choose not to prosecute because he has suffered the loss.
The US Constitution does not allow the President to instruct officials not to apply a law. The problem is it more difficult to impeach the President than some small time Kentucky official.
What loss did the police and prosecution service suffer when they decided not to prosecute though, and is obamas transgression inline with that type of not applying the law or did he act against a court ruling? or even a specific court instruction as in the case of Kim Davis?The US Constitution does not allow the President to instruct officials not to apply a law. The problem is it more difficult to impeach the President than some small time Kentucky official.
Her job isn't to decide who can and cannot get married.
She has one simple task to perform: Do the people applying for a marriage licence, meet the requirements set out in law.
That is it. She's not marrying them, all she is doing is saying that they have met the legal requirements. She doesn't have to agree with what they are doing, she is just there to ensure they are meeting the requirements.
She has one simple task to perform: Do the people applying for a marriage licence, meet the requirements set out in law.
That is it. She's not marrying them, all she is doing is saying that they have met the legal requirements. She doesn't have to agree with what they are doing, she is just there to ensure they are meeting the requirements.
Timsta said:
Her job isn't to decide who can and cannot get married.
She has one simple task to perform: Do the people applying for a marriage licence, meet the requirements set out in law.
That is it. She's not marrying them, all she is doing is saying that they have met the legal requirements. She doesn't have to agree with what they are doing, she is just there to ensure they are meeting the requirements.
So are we all Governed by the law? President Obama in the case of certain elements of Obama Care and the DAPA has said clearly he is not bound by the law?She has one simple task to perform: Do the people applying for a marriage licence, meet the requirements set out in law.
That is it. She's not marrying them, all she is doing is saying that they have met the legal requirements. She doesn't have to agree with what they are doing, she is just there to ensure they are meeting the requirements.
As for the law do you think the law should be made by 5 Judges of the Supreme Court or the voters?
Mrr T said:
Timsta said:
Her job isn't to decide who can and cannot get married.
She has one simple task to perform: Do the people applying for a marriage licence, meet the requirements set out in law.
That is it. She's not marrying them, all she is doing is saying that they have met the legal requirements. She doesn't have to agree with what they are doing, she is just there to ensure they are meeting the requirements.
So are we all Governed by the law? President Obama in the case of certain elements of Obama Care and the DAPA has said clearly he is not bound by the law?She has one simple task to perform: Do the people applying for a marriage licence, meet the requirements set out in law.
That is it. She's not marrying them, all she is doing is saying that they have met the legal requirements. She doesn't have to agree with what they are doing, she is just there to ensure they are meeting the requirements.
As for the law do you think the law should be made by 5 Judges of the Supreme Court or the voters?
Her job is to check that the application is valid. That is all.
Mrr T said:
As has been said if you don't think NINE judges can interpret law then its time for a civil war, but on your earlier point of originalisim:- Again I wouldn't claim to know more than the constitutional scholars on the subject, but it seems there is a fundamental flaw in originalisim in that once the originators kick the bucket everything subsequent is an interpretation, even if its one with a bias to what may be been thought at the time of writing.
Now I would have thought if you assume one thing about writing the constitution it was that those writing it were smart and realized they were not writing the menu for Bubba and Cleetus wedding reception but rather were crafting a document reflecting the values of a nation and that it was a document that would stand the tests of time, would be interpreted and reinterpreted and that the latter would also be in response to changing attitudes of society.
It could have been their intention that changes would need an amendment and obviously there have been, but you still need a way of interpreting what is already there and the supreme court has established itself as those interpreters.
It does seem though that originalisim is like religion, a veil to hide intolerance behind.
Mrr T said:
So are we all Governed by the law? President Obama in the case of certain elements of Obama Care and the DAPA has said clearly he is not bound by the law?
As for the law do you think the law should be made by 5 Judges of the Supreme Court or the voters?
You clearly know much more about Obamacare and DAPA than me (ie more than nothing) but it seems like what-aboutery in this thread, maybe another thread would be useful to bring the discussion to a wider audience?As for the law do you think the law should be made by 5 Judges of the Supreme Court or the voters?
As for your second point. I am comfortable with judges approved by those answerable to the electorate interpreting existing law. Certainly a lot more comfortable than some clerk in Kentucky doing it anyway.
Timsta said:
It's not my country, so I don't care how the law is made. But that's beside the point.
Her job is to check that the application is valid. That is all.
True but in approving it she thereby approves them to get married which is against her religious beliefs.... She is not marrying them that much is true. She is in fact giving or denying them that privilege.Her job is to check that the application is valid. That is all.
jimmybobby said:
True but in approving it she thereby approves them to get married which is against her religious beliefs.... She is not marrying them that much is true. She is in fact giving or denying them that privilege.
It isn't her job to approve them or not, that is the whole point. Her job is to give a licence to people who meet the criteria according to law. Whether she agrees or not is completely beside the point.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff