Jump to content

Supreme Court to Decide Whether Gays Nationwide Can Marry


StrangeSox

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 3, 2015 -> 10:11 AM)
I mean as Huckabee is saying it, because there isn't a law saying that I can adopt a cat from a shelter, I can't adopt a cat from a shelter. I think that is 100% backwards.

 

Playing devils advocate, that's not really the same. The clerk has delegated duties by law to fulfill in her role as clerk of the county. It's the lack of instruction, basically, from the law that he's pointing towards. You as a person aren't filling a position created by law to adopt cats with various instructions on what you're supposed to do in that position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's not lack of instruction. The parts of the law that restrict marriage to opposite sex couples have been made invalid. The rest of the Kentucky marriage law stands, so Davis must issue marriage licenses to whoever meets the states's qualifications.

 

When Loving v. Virginia came down, would it have been any less dumb to say "but the legislature didn't pass a law giving me authority to recognize mixed-race marriages!"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as if cue, here comes Westboro Baptist Church and not to Kim's rescue.

 

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/the-westbor...d-f**-marriage/

 

As Cee Lo Green said " ain't that some s***!"

 

I cannot stop laughing at the various irony. This just became absolutely hilarious! :lol:

 

I cannot stop laughing.

Edited by BlackSox13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Sep 14, 2015 -> 08:32 AM)
She's saying that to clear her conscience, but I can't imagine somebody will actually file a suit challenging the legality of the issued licenses.

Of course someone will do that.

 

It's a valid question - if the office signs the licenses but without Davis' name on them, are they still valid? Sucks that we have to even figure this out, but that appears to be where we are.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 14, 2015 -> 08:49 AM)
Of course someone will do that.

 

It's a valid question - if the office signs the licenses but without Davis' name on them, are they still valid? Sucks that we have to even figure this out, but that appears to be where we are.

 

From a technical standpoint, they probably are illegal. It will be interesting to see because of the Supreme Court ruling, if they are upheld or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Davis's lawyers have filed suit in the sixth circuit over a variety of issues. The one that stands out to me is that they're attempting to limit Judge Bunning's ruling to only the couples that specifically sued, not all couples.

 

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2015/09/kim-dav...velopments.html

 

She's also instructing her deputies to further alter the forms:

 

Now that her name has been removed, however, it turns out that the solution Davis earlier proposed does not suffice from her perspective. In her statement this morning, Davis said that she has ordered that the licenses issued by the Deputies in Rowan County may not include her name or title or "authority" [it's not clear what that means, since the form doesn't mention her "authority" in the first place], and that such licenses will bear the notation "Issued pursuant to a federal court order."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...