• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Kentucky clerk Kim Davis denies same-sex marriage license again, despite end of stay

Status
Not open for further replies.

HylianTom

Banned
All Republican candidates have said they will have the court revisit this case within the first year. Trump says he will have it done in the first month. Cruz, first day.

Obviously, it's all rhetoric to get voters, but they know their audience.
I love this, as it's a pretty significant "gateway" issue for younger voters (in the general) who see this as one of the basic civil rights issues of their time. They may agree with the GOP on multiple other bulletpoints, but they're not willing to, say, sell their gay friends/family's humanity up the river for hopes of a tax cut, allegedly smaller government (yeah, right), or promises of budget discipline (*guffaw*!)
 

andymcc

Banned
As mentioned before, Ashland, where Davis will be in Federal court today, is my hometown. As such, a bunch of friends have been posting pictures of the "protests" happening in front of the court house.

Appalachian as hell Jesus-man
oHhCqqd.jpg


Same dude praying for... something... I dunno.... (my friend said he's been there for hours, mumbling incoherently and screaming)
bGpO5DX.jpg


Uhhhh..
YPdKnnN.jpg


A proud warrior in God's army...
sXUhKpX.jpg


Some bad Kim Davis cosplay...
Cpqc1rJ.jpg

I'll post some more strange ones if I run across them. I have lots of friends that will be observing this today.
 

Arkeband

Banned
As mentioned before, Ashland, where Davis will be in Federal court today, is my hometown. As such, a bunch of friends have been posting pictures of the "protests" happening in front of the court house.

I'll post some more strange ones if I run across them. I have lots of friends that will be observing this today.

That second one almost made me spit out my coffee.
 

benjipwns

Banned
This is one of those protest signs that you always see that are:
1. Way too long to be read in any clear manner by a protest passer-by
b. When you do read them they start off alright and you're like "yeah, okay, I see what they're saying" and then suddenly "what in the fuck am I reading?"

Wish I could find this anti-Iraq one from like a decade ago that started off about how it's a war based on lies, for oil, etc. and then next thing you know it's about the Jewish bankers defying buddha by spreading the chemtrails and Alderman Johnson is a jerk who wouldn't grant my fence permit.
 

Par Score

Member
Anybody wanna guess as to the level of fines that will be levied?

I'm gonna say $1,000 a day to start with, maybe tacking on some future escalation, and with some strict stipulations over donations.
 

alr1ght

bish gets all the credit :)
A closer look at the legal group defending clerk Kim Davis' stand against gay marriage

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/03/usa-gaymarriage-kentucky-lawyers-idUSL1N1182NY20150903

Founded in 1989, the nonprofit Liberty Counsel is run by Mathew Staver and his wife, Anita. Staver, who until last year was dean of the law school at Liberty University, founded by the late conservative Christian firebrand Jerry Falwell, has argued and lost two U.S. Supreme Court cases. In one, he represented abortion protestors in Florida; in the other, he argued on behalf of Kentucky counties that posted the Ten Commandments in courthouses.

One of the most prominent Liberty Counsel cases was a long-running child custody dispute between a lesbian couple over their daughter. The group represented Lisa Miller, who renounced her lesbian identity and became a devout Christian. Liberty Counsel unsuccessfully fought to prevent Miller's former partner, Janet Jenkins, from having visitation rights. In 2009, Miller fled to Nicaragua with the child, prompting a string of separate criminal investigations.

Liberty Counsel has also represented opponents of bans on therapy intended to "cure" same-sex attraction.

Other litigation against the right to gay marriage has been dominated by the larger Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). Based in Scottsdale, Arizona, the group represented some state and local governments trying to maintain bans on gay marriage.

Among those who support gay marriage, Liberty Counsel has a reputation for being more extreme than ADF.

"Liberty Counsel is among the most irresponsible of 'Religious Right' organizations," said Greg Lipper, an attorney at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "ADF at least tries to fit its legal arguments within existing law; Liberty Counsel openly flouts it."

Well at least court will be entertaining.

Anybody wanna guess as to the level of fines that will be levied?

I'm gonna say $1,000 a day to start with, maybe tacking on some future escalation, and with some strict stipulations over donations.

Hopefully her yearly salary gets lowered each passing day and the money gets donated to a battered women shelter. Or give it to her church.
 
All Republican candidates have said they will have the court revisit this case within the first year. Trump says he will have it done in the first month. Cruz, first day.

In their wildest dreams.

There's no injury-in-fact, no standing, no original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court. Who the hell would they sue as the defendant? United States v. ? United States? Supreme Court? Would they pass a new DOMA to force a new showdown? With 40 democratic members in the Senate that ain't going far.

That being said, if I was a conservative president, didn't give a shit about the rule of law, didn't care about blowback from the liberal parts of the country I'd do the following (assuming I have majorities in both houses):

1) I'd immediately have congress pass a law expanding the Supreme Court to 15 justices.
1b) I'd have Hatch exercise the nuclear option to push it through the Senate.
2) I'd nominate anti-gay, ultra-conservative justices to pack the Supreme Court
3) Pass a new DOMA.
4) Wait for some gay couple to sue.
5) Watch as the shit hits the fan and Obergefell is overturned.

In all practicality, this is settled law. There's no "revisiting" a supreme court decision without a controversy. To show a controversy you need to show harm. Thinking that gays are icky and that god hates them getting married is not harm.
 

Arkeband

Banned
Anybody wanna guess as to the level of fines that will be levied?

I'm gonna say $1,000 a day to start with, maybe tacking on some future escalation, and with some strict stipulations over donations.

While a long drawn out farce would be entertaining to watch, it's more important that gay people not be discriminated against as soon as possible.
 
The New Testament also frowns on passing judgement down on other people. But then again this woman is an uneducated yokel so we shouldn't expect her to have the attention span to actually read the Bible.
 

Alavard

Member
I really hope the attorneys grill her on this.

I really hope they don't. She cannot be fought on the basis of hypocrisy in her beliefs, as she just claims she has sinned but has sought forgiveness from God for them. It is a trap to try to attack her on that front. She cannot be shamed, and she will not admit wrongdoing, because she can rationalize it with her beliefs no matter what is pointed out about her life.

Her beliefs are simply irrelevant to the legal discussion. They are no defense to her not doing her job, following the law, and not following court orders. It doesn't matter if she believes she is following the orders of God, Xenu, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
 

Trakdown

Member
I really hope the attorneys grill her on this.

No need, and I don't even think it's really applicable here. She shouldn't be on trial for how good or bad a Christian she is, she should be on trial for failing to fulfill her duties in support of the laws of the United States of America. That's pretty much an open and shut case.

Yeah, it's amusing that she's a hypocrite but it's not why we're here. I'm much more upset about her misusing a government seat to act as an agent of her church.
 
Born agains are always the craziest.

Yep. When I was a kid, I used to attend an Apostolic church with my grandparents. They are essentially Pentecostals, but tend to be more extreme. Women are only allowed to wear dresses/skirts. Men couldn't have long hair. Make-up, tattoos, and piercings (for men at least) were frowned upon. Music that was basically anything other than gospel was essentially devil worship (this included bands like Demon Hunter and Pillar).


Shits fuckin' crazy.
 
In their wildest dreams.

There's no injury-in-fact, no standing, no original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court. Who the hell would they sue as the defendant? United States v. ? United States? Supreme Court? Would they pass a new DOMA to force a new showdown? With 40 democratic members in the Senate that ain't going far.

That being said, if I was a conservative president, didn't give a shit about the rule of law, didn't care about blowback from the liberal parts of the country I'd do the following (assuming I have majorities in both houses):

1) I'd immediately have congress pass a law expanding the Supreme Court to 15 justices.
1b) I'd have Hatch exercise the nuclear option to push it through the Senate.
2) I'd nominate anti-gay, ultra-conservative justices to pack the Supreme Court
3) Pass a new DOMA.
4) Wait for some gay couple to sue.
5) Watch as the shit hits the fan and Obergefell is overturned.

In all practicality, this is settled law. There's no "revisiting" a supreme court decision without a controversy. To show a controversy you need to show harm. Thinking that gays are icky and that god hates them getting married is not harm.

Last time someone tried this it didn't go well. Even though it's technically under congress' control to define the size of the supreme court, everyone is aware that packing the supreme court by expanding it opens up a world of control for the president that nobody in congress ever wants to allow, even if it's for their own party.

If Republicans had a filibuster proof majority in both houses and really wanted to do this, they would wait for a far more important topic than gay marriage. Maybe abortion.
 

Arkeband

Banned
Is there a live feed of the courthouse somewhere? I want to watch a crowd go bananas when the interns come running out of the courthouse yelling "CONTEMPT!"
 

andymcc

Banned
Is there a live feed of the courthouse somewhere? I want to watch a crowd go bananas when the interns come running out of the courthouse yelling "CONTEMPT!"

one of my friends is probably going to live tweet the event, i'll see if she's ok w/ posting her twitter when she gets there.
 
Last time someone tried this it didn't go well. Even though it's technically under congress' control to define the size of the supreme court, everyone is aware that packing the supreme court by expanding it opens up a world of control for the president that nobody in congress ever wants to allow, even if it's for their own party.

If Republicans had a filibuster proof majority in both houses and really wanted to do this, they would wait for a far more important topic than gay marriage. Maybe abortion.

Yeah it didn't really work for FDR. i'm not saying it's wise. I'm saying it's possible. And if you're determined to fight dirty no option is out of the question even if it's naked power grabbing that will set you up for generations.
 

Arkeband

Banned
It's pretty ridiculous that it's 19 minutes into her hearing and there's no live blog or anything with eyes on this.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
It's pretty ridiculous that it's 19 minutes into her hearing and there's no live blog or anything with eyes on this.

i'm not sure it's a great injustice that, like, you might have to wait until the end of a hearing to find out the employment status of a county clerk.
 

Pilgrimzero

Member
It's pretty ridiculous that it's 19 minutes into her hearing and there's no live blog or anything with eyes on this.

I'm surprised its taken 19 minutes.

Judge: "Are you paid to be a clergyman and judge your fellow man? Or are you paid to hand out a marriage license as defined by the state? If your answer is anything but the second option you either need to quit or you are in contempt."
 

e_i

Member
There's a story out on Thrinkprogress that saying that her clerks are scared shitless of her, that she does things on her own.
 

cameron

Member
There's a story out on Thrinkprogress that saying that her clerks are scared shitless of her, that she does things on her own.

Rowan County Attorney Cecil Watkins:
Perhaps most significantly, Watkins also says that he learned that Davis’s deputy clerks would issue marriage licenses to all couples legally entitled to one, but that they are too afraid of Davis to do so.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...arriage-licenses-but-are-too-afraid-of-davis/
 

Arkeband

Banned
i'm not sure it's a great injustice that, like, you might have to wait until the end of a hearing to find out the employment status of a county clerk.

Oh come on now. The stakes of this hearing are a lot higher than that.

Kim Davis isn't the only clerk doing this, there are actually a lot of them, it's just she's the most visible because she was caught on camera and also looks the part.

The precedent set by this is going to be significant.
 
It has been known. And I wouldn't say it's another example of hypocrisy either--if she had known you can be sure she wouldn't have done it.

Yeah, her marital history provides enough hypocrisy regarding the sanctity of marriage already.
 

Arkeband

Banned
The GOP response has been to either support her or point out she's a democrat, so therefore Democrats must be against gay rights (too)?

It must be so confusing to be a social conservative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom