Kentucky County Clerk Denies Gay Marriage Licenses

[Cannot think of a name]

"explaining why" is precisely what you aren't doing.

Except I have. You may not agree with what I've said, but I've explained my thoughts to the best of my ability.

It's just that the 'best of your ability' is the equivalent of a ten year old shrugging his shoulders when asked by their parent why they broke the lamp..

[Eol Sha]

Except I have. You may not agree with what I've said, but I've explained my thoughts to the best of my ability.

It's just that the 'best of your ability' is the equivalent of a ten year old shrugging his shoulders when asked by their parent why they broke the lamp..

Honestly, my opinion doesn't go much further beyond that. I don't feel so strongly as to start protesting in favor of Kim Davis or giving an impassioned defense of her. I feel just strong enough to comment on the subject, but not much more.

[Cannot think of a name]

It's just that the 'best of your ability' is the equivalent of a ten year old shrugging his shoulders when asked by their parent why they broke the lamp..

Honestly, my opinion doesn't go much further beyond that. I don't feel so strongly as to start protesting in favor of Kim Davis or giving an impassioned defense of her. I feel just strong enough to comment on the subject, but not much more.

You have to understand that when you express an opinion, no matter how ill formed or lacking in passion, on an open forum it is going to be examined and challenged. That's kinda the thing, what with all the 'reply' and 'submit' buttons everywhere, it's almost like it's the entire point of the structure. Fine, you have a completely stupid, unfounded, indefensible, random ass kneejerk reaction that you apparently haven't the foggiest idea as to how you arrived at it. But once you pulled your pants down and wagged your bare ass dumb idea to everyone, you've opened the floor up for comments. You can't go wiggling that thing about and then go, "Hey, it's just my bare ass, what's with you guys?" If you didn't want people to grill you about it, you should have kept your pants up.

[Eol Sha]

That's a very opinionated FIRST POST. Don't you ever have a baby, because you're way too confident, you'll have a bad baby I promise you.

That's not what that cat was saying. Eol Sha seems to be under the mistaken impression that being questioned or disagreed with means that he is 'not allowed' to have a stupid opinion. This here newcomer is suggesting that if being disagreed with or having someone disapprove of his positions is such a hardship then having a baby will expose him to an overwhelming raft of disagreement and disapproval that will leave him a crippled mess since everyone has an impassioned opinion on what you should and should not be doing as a parent. It's not about confidence, in fact he's suggesting that Eol Sha's confidence is so lacking that the wave of contrary opinion will knock him on his ass.


EDIT: MOTHERFUCK...wrong dude. I'm...not good with names.

First of all, I don't feel that way at all. Deuxtete asked me why I had a problem with Davis being arrested. I responded by saying that I felt that way because of a gut feeling, an "irrational" feeling as Deuxtete described it. TomKirk then proceeded to call me a nuisance for stating my opinion and answering questions.

If you want to ask me a question then I'll do my best to answer it. Its not a hardship or even a difficulty.

[Eol Sha]

Honestly, my opinion doesn't go much further beyond that. I don't feel so strongly as to start protesting in favor of Kim Davis or giving an impassioned defense of her. I feel just strong enough to comment on the subject, but not much more.

You have to understand that when you express an opinion, no matter how ill formed or lacking in passion, on an open forum it is going to be examined and challenged. That's kinda the thing, what with all the 'reply' and 'submit' buttons everywhere, it's almost like it's the entire point of the structure. Fine, you have a completely stupid, unfounded, indefensible, random ass kneejerk reaction that you apparently haven't the foggiest idea as to how you arrived at it. But once you pulled your pants down and wagged your bare ass dumb idea to everyone, you've opened the floor up for comments. You can't go wiggling that thing about and then go, "Hey, it's just my bare ass, what's with you guys?" If you didn't want people to grill you about it, you should have kept your pants up.

I'm perfectly willing to have people grill me about my opinions and beliefs. They don't have to accept what I say. They can agree or disagree if they want. All I can and will do is answer questions. Whether they accept my answers is up to them.

[Cannot think of a name]

That's not what that cat was saying. Eol Sha seems to be under the mistaken impression that being questioned or disagreed with means that he is 'not allowed' to have a stupid opinion. This here newcomer is suggesting that if being disagreed with or having someone disapprove of his positions is such a hardship then having a baby will expose him to an overwhelming raft of disagreement and disapproval that will leave him a crippled mess since everyone has an impassioned opinion on what you should and should not be doing as a parent. It's not about confidence, in fact he's suggesting that Eol Sha's confidence is so lacking that the wave of contrary opinion will knock him on his ass.


EDIT: MOTHERFUCK...wrong dude. I'm...not good with names.

First of all, I don't feel that way at all. Deuxtete asked me why I had a problem with Davis being arrested. I responded by saying that I felt that way because of a gut feeling, an "irrational" feeling as Deuxtete described it. TomKirk then proceeded to call me a nuisance for stating my opinion and answering questions.

You asked if you 'weren't allowed' to have an opinion. It was a goofy question.

If you want to ask me a question then I'll do my best to answer it. Its not a hardship or even a difficulty.

We've seen your best. It's...not great.

Anyway, we get it. You pulled an opinion out of your ass and have no idea how it got there or why it happened and yet you shared that fart with the rest of us. We can move on.

[Eol Sha]

Of course you're "allowed" to hold irrational beliefs, but spouting them on a board devoted to discussion is rather a nuisance. If you have no reasoning to offer, what are you attempting to accomplish?

Agreed, unless the word "allowed" has changed from my understanding. Nobody's going to throw you in jail for having an irrational belief. Nobody has enough time, interest or jail-space for that malarkey. Are you under the impression that allowed means that everyone on the internet has to approve of what you think? Because seriously, don't ever have a baby, because all actions and non-actions will automatically be disapproved of by vast armies of highly opinionated people.

Assuming this is directed at me, I am under no such impression. I've been a member of this forum for three years now and interested in politics since 2010. Even if I once believed that, such beliefs have certainly been dispelled by now.

[Eol Sha]

First of all, I don't feel that way at all. Deuxtete asked me why I had a problem with Davis being arrested. I responded by saying that I felt that way because of a gut feeling, an "irrational" feeling as Deuxtete described it. TomKirk then proceeded to call me a nuisance for stating my opinion and answering questions.

You asked if you 'weren't allowed' to have an opinion. It was a goofy question.

If you want to ask me a question then I'll do my best to answer it. Its not a hardship or even a difficulty.

We've seen your best. It's...not great.

Anyway, we get it. You pulled an opinion out of your ass and have no idea how it got there or why it happened and yet you shared that fart with the rest of us. We can move on.

Was it improperly worded? Yeah. I'll admit that.

I'll stop once the other's stop or a mod warns us.

[Farnhamia]

You asked if you 'weren't allowed' to have an opinion. It was a goofy question.

We've seen your best. It's...not great.

Anyway, we get it. You pulled an opinion out of your ass and have no idea how it got there or why it happened and yet you shared that fart with the rest of us. We can move on.

Was it improperly worded? Yeah. I'll admit that.

I'll stop once the other's stop or a mod warns us.

Having posted extensively here I can't say anything official but moving on or rather back to the topic might be a good idea.

[Eol Sha]

Was it improperly worded? Yeah. I'll admit that.

I'll stop once the other's stop or a mod warns us.

Having posted extensively here I can't say anything official but moving on or rather back to the topic might be a good idea.

Understood.

[Ifreann]

Rather depends, doesn't it? There was a story on the news here a little while ago about an Irish woman working as a nanny in the US facing murder charges relating to the death of a child in her care. Specifically the story was about her being released after two and a half years in jail and the charges being dropped because there was insufficient evidence to support the charge. Does the fact that she was arrested for murder make her unsuitable as babysitter?

Conviction requires beyond a reasonable doubt, not even a most like did it.

Whereas arrest requires only that a cop think you need arresting.

So to answer your question, no I would not hire her, or allow her anywhere near my kid unsupervised. You of course are free to do what you want.

Why not? There's no evidence to suggest she did anything wrong. The ME's report that lead to her arrest was, eventually, amended by the ME.

The point is that being arrested doesn't mean you did anything wrong.

---

Rather depends, doesn't it? There was a story on the news here a little while ago about an Irish woman working as a nanny in the US facing murder charges relating to the death of a child in her care. Specifically the story was about her being released after two and a half years in jail and the charges being dropped because there was insufficient evidence to support the charge. Does the fact that she was arrested for murder make her unsuitable as babysitter?

Two and a half years in jail, without a conviction?

She should get half a million bucks, compensation for the law fucking her around.

Some of that was house arrest, but yeah.

---

Honestly, my opinion doesn't go much further beyond that. I don't feel so strongly as to start protesting in favor of Kim Davis or giving an impassioned defense of her. I feel just strong enough to comment on the subject, but not much more.

You have to understand that when you express an opinion, no matter how ill formed or lacking in passion, on an open forum it is going to be examined and challenged. That's kinda the thing, what with all the 'reply' and 'submit' buttons everywhere, it's almost like it's the entire point of the structure. Fine, you have a completely stupid, unfounded, indefensible, random ass kneejerk reaction that you apparently haven't the foggiest idea as to how you arrived at it. But once you pulled your pants down and wagged your bare ass dumb idea to everyone, you've opened the floor up for comments. You can't go wiggling that thing about and then go, "Hey, it's just my bare ass, what's with you guys?" If you didn't want people to grill you about it, you should have kept your pants up.

Invest in a belt, maybe.

[Val Halla]

Could she get in trouble after being booted?

[Farnhamia]

Could she get in trouble after being booted?

Get in trouble for what? I assume you're talking about Kim Davis.

[Val Halla]

Could she get in trouble after being booted?

Get in trouble for what? I assume you're talking about Kim Davis.

Yeah. Because they can't do much now, could they when she's not clerk?

[Farnhamia]

Get in trouble for what? I assume you're talking about Kim Davis.

Yeah. Because they can't do much now, could they when she's not clerk?

I'm not sure I understand. If she resigns, she becomes a private citizen. She never actually broke any laws, what she did was refuse to obey a federal injunction. That's why she was in jail. Kentucky still has a law on the books saying that marriage is defined as only between one man and one woman, though it's not enforceable anymore. There is no federal law saying same-sex couples can be married because the US government doesn't do marriages. The Supreme Court decision didn't legalize SSM, per se, it said the states may not ban it. A fine point, perhaps. So again, what would she get in trouble for?

[Val Halla]

Yeah. Because they can't do much now, could they when she's not clerk?

I'm not sure I understand. If she resigns, she becomes a private citizen. She never actually broke any laws, what she did was refuse to obey a federal injunction. That's why she was in jail. Kentucky still has a law on the books saying that marriage is defined as only between one man and one woman, though it's not enforceable anymore. There is no federal law saying same-sex couples can be married because the US government doesn't do marriages. The Supreme Court decision didn't legalize SSM, per se, it said the states may not ban it. A fine point, perhaps. So again, what would she get in trouble for?

Huh. The legal aspect of it all is just confusing to me, especially as a none American.

Would it be like if all the UK brought in SSM but somebody in Northern Ireland refused still?

[Farnhamia]

I'm not sure I understand. If she resigns, she becomes a private citizen. She never actually broke any laws, what she did was refuse to obey a federal injunction. That's why she was in jail. Kentucky still has a law on the books saying that marriage is defined as only between one man and one woman, though it's not enforceable anymore. There is no federal law saying same-sex couples can be married because the US government doesn't do marriages. The Supreme Court decision didn't legalize SSM, per se, it said the states may not ban it. A fine point, perhaps. So again, what would she get in trouble for?

Huh. The legal aspect of it all is just confusing to me, especially as a none American.

Would it be like if all the UK brought in SSM but somebody in Northern Ireland refused still?

I have no idea.

[AiliailiA]

Really, I don't have kids.

It is disgraceful that police issue the names of persons arrested. For whatever charge. There should be no secret arrest, yes that is important for individual liberty: but the release of the name should be only if the arrested person wants it made public.

Arraignment (the bail hearing, where a judge decides if the arrest warrants a trial) is where the judiciary enters the picture. There I would say the suspect's name should be released (with or without their consent) only if they are arraigned. If the judge orders them released, it should not be public unless the suspect wants it so.

You have said yourself that arrest can "ruin a persons life" so why would you leave that power to police before any judge has ruled on whether the arrest was legally justified?

1. Arrests can be expunged, so there is a mechanism for removing arrests from a record.

Well that's something.

If I'd been arrested, then released without charge, apparently I could pursue a legal process to have my arrest expunged.

I have been arrested in the past, at least twice (forgive me for not remembering, I was rather riotous and unmindful [drunk etc] in my youth). I have never been charged with a crime. In those two events I remember, I think my arrest was quite justified: I think the police did the right thing to remove me from that situation, and to question me in the conditions of arrest (wherein anything I said could be used as evidence in trial) and I'm happy that in each case I satisfied their concerns and was not charged.

It has never occurred to me to have those arrests expunged from my legal record. It simply does not seem necessary, for anything I might want to do in the future. Prospective employers can't see my arrest record, unless they're government agencies who could see the arrest AND expungement, so what's the point?

2. I think "night and fog" arrests argues against your point, but I think your point is a fair one.

I get the reference. Considering that suspects arrested may be unaware of their legal rights, it might seem that automatic disclosure of the names of people arrested is the best defense of the People against Secret Police. For each arrest a name (and mugshot?) so the arrests without name stand out.

But do the names need to be disclosed to the public? I think judicial oversight is sufficient, leaving the police with the option of arrest for questioning, or arrest to prevent a likely crime, and the suspects (as I was at least twice) only minimally inconvenienced and without public opprobrium.

At risk of repeating myself, I didn't mind being arrested. In both cases I understand the police motivation to arrest me; I think they did the right thing. I would feel very differently about it if my arrest had been publicly announced and put on the public record, it would be a "naming and shaming" punishment as if I had actually committed a crime. Which in those cases I hadn't.

[Genivaria]

What I want to know is why the homophobic Kim Davis supporters are allowed in the office just so they can heckle and yell at same-sex couples.

I mean I don't care for those so-called 'pro-life' people who stand outside clinics and heckle people who go in and out but that's outside on the sidewalk.

But INSIDE a government office where people are coming and going and shit needs to get done is just fucking ridiculous.

[AiliailiA]

What I want to know is why the homophobic Kim Davis supporters are allowed in the office just so they can heckle and yell at same-sex couples.

I mean I don't care for those so-called 'pro-life' people who stand outside clinics and heckle people who go in and out but that's outside on the sidewalk.

But INSIDE a government office where people are coming and going and shit needs to get done is just fucking ridiculous.

Members of the public in a public space, they're probably covered by freedom of speech. Unless they're issuing threats?

Also, shoes. If they're not wearing shoes they could probably be ejected on health and safety grounds.

[Deuxtete]

DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH EVERYONE HELD IN CONTEMPT OR JUST THIS WOMAN?
I direct you back to the question asked.
Also if its not philosophical, ideological, or reasoned, then its called irrational.
Your "gut" isn't any type of reasoning, thus you disliking it is entirely irrational, and by your own admission without reason.

Probably just this woman and the specific circumstances surrounding her arrest. Actually, more the circumstances of her arrest rather than whatever political/religious beliefs Kim Davis says she has. Beyond her being a discriminatory bigot, I could care less about Kim Davis' beliefs or Kim Davis herself.

Am I not allowed to hold irrational beliefs and opinions?

The circumstances are she was ordered to cease violating the civil rights of others via abusing her authority as an elected official. Nothing else.

So it bothers you one can be held in contempt of court for violating a judges order to not violate protected rights under the law. As you say, specifically this woman, this case, this topic.
Yet you keep claiming the actual subject matter of the case isn't the problem...yet its specifically this case.

We are all surely allowed to have irrational and unreasoned opinions.
But then, we must admit they are then by definition entirely indefensible. You keep trying to defend your position but refuse to base it on anything.

Cake and eat it to?

[Deuxtete]

What I want to know is why the homophobic Kim Davis supporters are allowed in the office just so they can heckle and yell at same-sex couples.

I mean I don't care for those so-called 'pro-life' people who stand outside clinics and heckle people who go in and out but that's outside on the sidewalk.

But INSIDE a government office where people are coming and going and shit needs to get done is just fucking ridiculous.

It's definitely pro-life, I might not agree with the tactic but don't be juvenile.
It's a public building, just like EVERYONE else they have a right to be there.
Do not be that person who wants one groups rights upheld but the group you don't agree with, they suddenly deserve to be shit on.

The pro-lifers can't go in because those clinics are private property...this is the county clerks office.

[Genivaria]

What I want to know is why the homophobic Kim Davis supporters are allowed in the office just so they can heckle and yell at same-sex couples.

I mean I don't care for those so-called 'pro-life' people who stand outside clinics and heckle people who go in and out but that's outside on the sidewalk.

But INSIDE a government office where people are coming and going and shit needs to get done is just fucking ridiculous.

It's definitely pro-life, I might not agree with the tactic but don't be juvenile.
It's a public building, just like EVERYONE else they have a right to be there.
Do not be that person who wants one groups rights upheld but the group you don't agree with, they suddenly deserve to be shit on.

The pro-lifers can't go in because those clinics are private property...this is the county clerks office.

There is nothing juvenile about calling the hypocritical 'pro-life' crowd on their hypocrisy.
And you clearly didn't read what I said if you think I'm 'shitting on' anyone.

[The Black Forrest]

From earlier in this thread:

Its the reason for why she was declared in contempt of court. I find it hard to feel comfortable with someone being arrested for not doing their job.

Yes, I realize that she wasn't doing what the court told her, but I'd like there to have been some other solution that didn't involve her arrest.

I realize that, but it seems extreme to lock someone up just because they aren't issuing marriage licenses. This isn't murder. It's not burglary. It's not petty theft. It's not even wire fraud. It just weirds me out that this woman is being arrested for an action that doesn't actually hurt anyone.

I just find it disturbing that someone can get arrested simply for not giving out pieces of paper.

She was ordered to and said no. What is hard to understand about that?

If the threat of sitting in jail for a few days won't motivate her, what other "solution" would work?

[Ethel mermania]

It's definitely pro-life, I might not agree with the tactic but don't be juvenile.
It's a public building, just like EVERYONE else they have a right to be there.
Do not be that person who wants one groups rights upheld but the group you don't agree with, they suddenly deserve to be shit on.

The pro-lifers can't go in because those clinics are private property...this is the county clerks office.

There is nothing juvenile about calling the hypocritical 'pro-life' crowd on their hypocrisy.
And you clearly didn't read what I said if you think I'm 'shitting on' anyone.

Or he believes your that person who wants everyone's rights upheld except for the ones you disagree with. You know like the right to be in a public building if you don't like gays.